Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on August 13, 2019, 08:23:23 AM
-
With serious reservations, but based on a majority decision of priests I consulted, I enrolled my kids in an sspx school.
The overarching rule being that I remain daily vigilant about what is happening socially, liturgically, etc. to ensure they are not being inculcated with a conciliatory attitude towards modernist Rome.
Moments ago I discovered that, despite our instruction to our children that they not make the responses during the dialogue Mass, the teachers are pressuring them to disregard our instruction.
One teacher removed my child from class to speak with him in the hallway about how good and important it is to make the responses, and another teacher told my other child’s class that whoever made the responses would receive two marbles (my child perceived that this was in response to this teachers’ having discovered that he was not making the responses).
Now whether or not one likes the dialogue mass is not the immediate concern. What is the immediate concern is that on the one hand, I have never heard of or experienced a Mass in which one was forced to make the responses (can we no longer pray the Rosary or read our missals or simply make our own devotions?), and even more troubling is that the teachers are aware of our instructions to our children (one of my children told the teacher to take it up with us, which made me proud, but they never did), but are apparently pressuring them anyway.
I am not sure I can continue to keep my kids in an environment which will result in a struggle for their formation.
On the flip side, things will be very difficult if we are forced to homeschool.
I am very upset to be put in this position (even angry), since I had thought and hoped the school would look the other way regarding the responses.
There are other issues as well (eg., my children are singled out by their peers for not standing during the angus dei or the Sanctus, etc).
If you were in my position, do you think this pressuring crosses the line which should result in my pulling them from the school?
I guess I still need to clarify whether the pressuring has continued after my child told the teacher to take it up with us.
I don’t want to be rash, but I don’t want to be negligent.
This is very difficult for me, and any constructive commentary would be much appreciated.
-
They are an organization based in France and started by a French archbishop — therefore, they will retain French customs. Like the Dialogue Mass.
-
With serious reservations, but based on a majority decision of priests I consulted, I enrolled my kids in an sspx school.
The overarching rule being that I remain daily vigilant about what is happening socially, liturgically, etc. to ensure they are not being inculcated with a conciliatory attitude towards modernist Rome.
Moments ago I discovered that, despite our instruction to our children that they not make the responses during the dialogue Mass, the teachers are pressuring them to disregard our instruction.
One teacher removed my child from class to speak with him in the hallway about how good and important it is to make the responses, and another teacher told my other child’s class that whoever made the responses would receive two marbles (my child perceived that this was in response to this teachers’ having discovered that he was not making the responses).
Now whether or not one likes the dialogue mass is not the immediate concern. What is the immediate concern is that on the one hand, I have never heard of or experienced a Mass in which one was forced to make the responses (can we no longer pray the Rosary or read our missals or simply make our own devotions?), and even more troubling is that the teachers are aware of our instructions to our children (one of my children told the teacher to take it up with us, which made me proud, but they never did), but are apparently pressuring them anyway.
I am not sure I can continue to keep my kids in an environment which will result in a struggle for their formation.
On the flip side, things will be very difficult if we are forced to homeschool.
I am very upset to be put in this position (even angry), since I had thought and hoped the school would look the other way regarding the responses.
There are other issues as well (eg., my children are singled out by their peers for not standing during the angus dei or the Sanctus, etc).
If you were in my position, do you think this pressuring crosses the line which should result in my pulling them from the school?
I guess I still need to clarify whether the pressuring has continued after my child told the teacher to take it up with us.
I don’t want to be rash, but I don’t want to be negligent.
This is very difficult for me, and any constructive commentary would be much appreciated.
The dialogue mass is a novelty from the late 1930's, that caught on big in France, but not in English speaking countries. It is not a custom in English speaking countries but a total novelty. Foreign priests were always instructed not to change the customs of the countries to which they are sent, but today the SSPX priests think they know better and that Americans are idiots. They are teaching the children what they will not say to the parents, so they are cowards, unless they first force the parents to do the Dialogue Mass, which of course is changing the local customs and always forbidden. If it were I, I would tell the person in charge that you do not authorize them to challenge your authority on this matter, to have your children excused from this novelty.
-
With serious reservations, but based on a majority decision of priests I consulted, I enrolled my kids in an sspx school.
The overarching rule being that I remain daily vigilant about what is happening socially, liturgically, etc. to ensure they are not being inculcated with a conciliatory attitude towards modernist Rome.
Moments ago I discovered that, despite our instruction to our children that they not make the responses during the dialogue Mass, the teachers are pressuring them to disregard our instruction.
That is why that school only has 30 students for the last 10 years, everybody comes with hope and very soon leaves when they see these realities
-
On the flip side, things will be very difficult if we are forced to homeschool.
I am very upset to be put in this position (even angry), since I had thought and hoped the school would look the other way regarding the responses.
There are other issues as well (eg., my children are singled out by their peers for not standing during the angus dei or the Sanctus, etc).
If you were in my position, do you think this pressuring crosses the line which should result in my pulling them from the school?
I guess I still need to clarify whether the pressuring has continued after my child told the teacher to take it up with us.
I don’t want to be rash, but I don’t want to be negligent.
This is very difficult for me, and any constructive commentary would be much appreciated.
As soon as possible, clarify with both your children and their teachers if the pressure is still on. If so tell the teachers that they need to stop pressuring your kids. If they say "no", then go to the Priest and tell him to please respect your decision and call an end to the pressure. Now if he says "no", then you will need to pull them out as you will only have more battels at that schools and more stress than you would homeschooling.
-
I’m tired of having to continually walk a tightrope at the school.
If it may have been permissible to send my children there, it certainly was never obligatory.
It is not worth the stress, and I am certainly not going to willfully introduce the opportunity for a division into my family (especially a religious division).
I will be notifying the school that my children will not be entering after all.
-
I don't know. I would find a way to pick my battles. While I don't like the Dialogue Mass personally, it was in fact approved by Church authorities well before Vatican II, and I don't consider it to be intrinsically wrong or harmful. I would wait until they bring a Novus Ordo bishop in to hear confessions before I started making a big stir.
Do the benefits of having your children attend an SSPX school outweigh the potential harm of a dialogue Mass?
-
I don't know. I would find a way to pick my battles. While I don't like the Dialogue Mass personally, it was in fact approved by Church authorities well before Vatican II, and I don't consider it to be intrinsically wrong or harmful. I would wait until they bring a Novus Ordo bishop in to hear confessions before I started making a big stir.
Do the benefits of having your children attend an SSPX school outweigh the potential harm of a dialogue Mass?
Enforcement of making the dialogue mass responses is not the ultimate issue, but the loss of trust and confidence in the priest and faculty. Once upon a time we were told they would not have to make the responses, only to learn today that there has been ongoing pressure to do precisely that.
There are other things, like field trips to a planetarium in the post-Fr. Robinson era, where I can no longer presume SSPX priests/school faculty would correct any scientific heresies taught by planetarium staff, as I once could.
Then the socialization has been gnawing on me: Archbishop Lefebvre said regarding the indult Mass that one does not merely attend a Mass, but an entire milieu: the sermon, the advice in the confession, the conversation before and after Mass, etc.
And mass is only for one hour/week. What about 7hrs/day, 5 days/week?
We VERY begrudgingly would have endured the dialogue mass, had the school looked the other way when our boys didn’t make the responses, as we were led to believe they would, but this day’s discovery is the straw that broke the camel’s back
If I can’t trust, I become a derelict parent for sending my children anyway.
-
Enforcement of making the dialogue mass responses is not the ultimate issue, but the loss of trust and confidence in the priest and faculty. Once upon a time we were told they would not have to make the responses, only to learn today that there has been ongoing pressure to do precisely that.
There are other things, like field trips to a planetarium in the post-Fr. Robinson era, where I can no longer presume SSPX priests/school faculty would correct any scientific heresies taught by planetarium staff, as I once could.
Then the socialization has been gnawing on me: Archbishop Lefebvre said regarding the indult Mass that one does not merely attend a Mass, but an entire milieu: the sermon, the advice in the confession, the conversation before and after Mass, etc.
And mass is only for one hour/week. What about 7hrs/day, 5 days/week?
We VERY begrudgingly would have endured the dialogue mass, had the school looked the other way when our boys didn’t make the responses, as we were led to believe they would, but this day’s discovery is the straw that broke the camel’s back
If I can’t trust, I become a derelict parent for sending my children anyway.
Well, despite its shortcoming, many people would give almost anything to have the opportunity to send their kids to such a school. If there are slight corrections you need to make at home, you're in a position to do so. It almost sounds like you're scrupulous and demanding perfection. I've seen it happen that parents increasingly isolate their children, to the point of being neurotic, to the point that the children get the impression that your family thinks that they are more Catholic even than the strict Traditional Catholics. And they plot the entire time to break away the minute they have the opportunity. You could likely have found worse flaws in the mainstream Catholics schools before Vatican II. Do your best to undo any possible damage, but, as long as the school is essentially Catholic, it's probably very good for the children overall.
Sometimes the demand to have perfection for your children is the manifestation of ego, the need to feel like the perfect parents. With all things human, there's rarely such a thing as perfection. It's like the parents who get so tightly wound about organic food and their kids health that they have a veritable melt-down if a child were to consume a piece of candy given by a friend.
-
Well, despite its shortcoming, many people would give almost anything to have the opportunity to send their kids to such a school. If there are slight corrections you need to make at home, you're in a position to do so. It almost sounds like you're scrupulous and demanding perfection. I've seen it happen that parents increasingly isolate their children, to the point of being neurotic, to the point that the children get the impression that your family thinks that they are more Catholic even than the strict Traditional Catholics. And they plot the entire time to break away the minute they have the opportunity. You could likely have found worse flaws in the mainstream Catholics schools before Vatican II. Do your best to undo any possible damage, but, as long as the school is essentially Catholic, it's probably very good for the children overall.
Sometimes the demand to have perfection for your children is the manifestation of ego, the need to feel like the perfect parents. With all things human, there's rarely such a thing as perfection. It's like the parents who get so tightly wound about organic food and their kids health that they have a veritable melt-down if a child were to consume a piece of candy given by a friend.
You speak of “the Traditional Catholics” as though you yourself are not one.
That probably explains why your response leaves the ralliement of the SSPX out of consideration.
-
Well, despite its shortcoming, many people would give almost anything to have the opportunity to send their kids to such a school. If there are slight corrections you need to make at home, you're in a position to do so. It almost sounds like you're scrupulous and demanding perfection. I've seen it happen that parents increasingly isolate their children, to the point of being neurotic, to the point that the children get the impression that your family thinks that they are more Catholic even than the strict Traditional Catholics. And they plot the entire time to break away the minute they have the opportunity. You could likely have found worse flaws in the mainstream Catholics schools before Vatican II. Do your best to undo any possible damage, but, as long as the school is essentially Catholic, it's probably very good for the children overall.
Sometimes the demand to have perfection for your children is the manifestation of ego, the need to feel like the perfect parents. With all things human, there's rarely such a thing as perfection. It's like the parents who get so tightly wound about organic food and their kids health that they have a veritable melt-down if a child were to consume a piece of candy given by a friend.
I didn't get the impression he was talking about imperfections at the school as the reason for leaving, but a problem of trust (with the SSPX generally, and the teachers going against his will in particular).
-
OP’s children should be able to pray the Mass instead of being forced to be mechanical as agreed before enrollment. You need to send a letter to teachers about the agreement or if that doesn’t work then have a face to face meeting with teachers The teachers should be more concerned with students who don’t their prayers or who are misbehaving during Mass. Are these lay teachers or religious sisters?
If the school had non Catholic students, they would be setting aside separate prayer rooms and times to accommodate those who follow false religion.
Pre Vatican II, when Catholic schools were “Catholic”, religious sister taught and schools didn’t cost much. Things changed when schools starting taking non Catholics then Catholic schools got greedy.
-
When teachers act in direct opposition to your requests, it’s time to meet with the administration and school board. But keep in mind you don’t run the school. If you do not agree with school policy, it is time to withdraw your children and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to educate them yourself. As a teacher, it is unfair to expect a teacher to disobey school policy.
-
If the school had non Catholic students, they would be setting aside separate prayer rooms and times to accommodate those who follow false religion.
At an SSPX school?
-
When teachers act in direct opposition to your requests, it’s time to meet with the administration and school board. But keep in mind you don’t run the school. If you do not agree with school policy, it is time to withdraw your children and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to educate them yourself. As a teacher, it is unfair to expect a teacher to disobey school policy.
Right, there really are limits for how much a school need to conform to the individual requests of parents. There has to be a certain uniformity, or it becomes impossible to manage.
-
I think your kids should stay, and encourage all the kids to quit saying the dialogue mass. Maybe you could give them info to pass around to their friends. One day the priest would show up ready to dialogue, and be confronted with dead silence. That would be wonderful.
-
I cannot believe you are treating this as though it's some kind of heresy.
It is called conviction, she has conviction, you do not. The Dialogue mass was a stepping stone to the Novus Ordo.
-
Exactly. The liturgical innovators began the dialogue mass without permission, spreading and networking through monasteries, later gaining the permissions of liberal bishops who eventually succeeded in having Rome bless their modernist practices/principles.
The sspx thinks they will do the same thing with Rome (grass roots reform).
What they don’t realize is that the modernists occupy Rome, so traditionalism will not be permitted to percolate upward as the liturgical revolutionaries did in the wake of Pius X’s weak successors (Benedict XV, who abolished the Sodalitium, giving the green light to the modernists to come out of hiding).
-
This sounds like a huge overreaction to what was probably just a mild misunderstanding. The teachers likely just assumed that your children weren't responding because they were bored or being irreverent. I'm sure quick conversation with the teacher to let them know why your kids don't want to say the responses would settle the issue.
Isolating your children from their peers will do them much more harm than the Dialogue Mass.
-
This sounds like a huge overreaction to what was probably just a mild misunderstanding. The teachers likely just assumed that your children weren't responding because they were bored or being irreverent. I'm sure quick conversation with the teacher to let them know why your kids don't want to say the responses would settle the issue.
Isolating your children from their peers will do them much more harm than the Dialogue Mass.
We had already had that talk with one of the teachers involved.
As for isolating them from their peers being damaging, that presumes their peers are good influences, which given the ralliement milieu, I do not believe to be the case (in fact, I think it much more deleterious than the dialogue mass thing).
-
I am the OP: Just found out that we received this information while, unbeknownst to me, my wife and mother were saying a novena for this intention (i.e., whether or not our kids should go to the school). It was apparently on the 7th day of the novena that the kids gave my wife this info, and the 9th day of the Novena is the school's registration deadline (Aug. 15)! To me, that sounds like heaven has approved our decision. I don't believe in coincidences.
-
I don't know a whole lot about the dialogue mass, but it seems like the real issue here is circuмventing of parental authority, not the dialogue mass per se.
-
I am the OP: Just found out that we received this information while, unbeknownst to me, my wife and mother were saying a novena for this intention (i.e., whether or not our kids should go to the school). It was apparently on the 7th day of the novena that the kids gave my wife this info, and the 9th day of the Novena is the school's registration deadline (Aug. 15)! To me, that sounds like heaven has approved our decision. I don't believe in coincidences.
Are you the only parents in the school with that concern? If not, maybe a bigger group could address the issue with the school principal just like the Canadians in Calgary did with the diversity issue in the school handbook.
-
With serious reservations, but based on a majority decision of priests I consulted, I enrolled my kids in an sspx school.
The overarching rule being that I remain daily vigilant about what is happening socially, liturgically, etc. to ensure they are not being inculcated with a conciliatory attitude towards modernist Rome.
Moments ago I discovered that, despite our instruction to our children that they not make the responses during the dialogue Mass, the teachers are pressuring them to disregard our instruction.
One teacher removed my child from class to speak with him in the hallway about how good and important it is to make the responses, and another teacher told my other child’s class that whoever made the responses would receive two marbles (my child perceived that this was in response to this teachers’ having discovered that he was not making the responses).
Now whether or not one likes the dialogue mass is not the immediate concern. What is the immediate concern is that on the one hand, I have never heard of or experienced a Mass in which one was forced to make the responses (can we no longer pray the Rosary or read our missals or simply make our own devotions?), and even more troubling is that the teachers are aware of our instructions to our children (one of my children told the teacher to take it up with us, which made me proud, but they never did), but are apparently pressuring them anyway.
I am not sure I can continue to keep my kids in an environment which will result in a struggle for their formation.
On the flip side, things will be very difficult if we are forced to homeschool.
I am very upset to be put in this position (even angry), since I had thought and hoped the school would look the other way regarding the responses.
There are other issues as well (eg., my children are singled out by their peers for not standing during the angus dei or the Sanctus, etc).
If you were in my position, do you think this pressuring crosses the line which should result in my pulling them from the school?
I guess I still need to clarify whether the pressuring has continued after my child told the teacher to take it up with us.
I don’t want to be rash, but I don’t want to be negligent.
This is very difficult for me, and any constructive commentary would be much appreciated.
I am the OP of this thread. Just wanted to mention that after a few more days of questioning the children and speaking with one of the teachers about the matter, it now seems very unlikely the stories our children passed along to us about being pressured to make the dialogue responses are accurate (and the priest says he has had teacher conferences explicitly stating my children are not to be pressured into making them, per our request).
My apologies to all involved on this specific point. We are rather embarrassed.
-
I am the OP of this thread. Just wanted to mention that after a few more days of questioning the children and speaking with one of the teachers about the matter, it now seems very unlikely the stories our children passed along to us about being pressured to make the dialogue responses are accurate (and the priest says he has had teacher conferences explicitly stating my children are not to be pressured into making them, per our request).
My apologies to all involved on this specific point. We are rather embarrassed.
You'll find that nearly everything that children say must be taken with a huge grain of salt. Now, they probably weren't even lying. It was their "perception" that they were being pressured due to the mere "everyone else is doing it" factor, a perceived peer pressure. As the teacher perhaps encouraged the class to make the responses, the kids felt the pressure as well. Which then turned into, "the teacher was pressuring me to say the responses."
When I get a report of some incident related by one of my kids at school, I usually ask one of their siblings or peers for an independent recounting of the incident. Sometimes you can get to the truth by overlapping their accounts and sifting out the differences that were due to subjective perception.
-
You'll find that nearly everything that children say must be taken with a huge grain of salt. Now, they probably weren't even lying. It was their "perception" that they were being pressured due to the mere "everyone else is doing it" factor, a perceived peer pressure. As the teacher perhaps encouraged the class to make the responses, the kids felt the pressure as well. Which then turned into, "the teacher was pressuring me to say the responses."
When I get a report of some incident related by one of my kids at school, I usually ask one of their siblings or peers for an independent recounting of the incident. Sometimes you can get to the truth by overlapping their accounts and sifting out the differences that were due to subjective perception.
Yes, it seems that something along those lines was in play. I recall taking great offense when recounting to the priest what my kids had told me, and he laughed, and asked, “You would believe your children over one of our school faculty?” At the time, that sounded cultish to me, and I replied “Absolutely, I would believe my children over someone at the school.” We speak so much to our young children about being able to tell us anything, the importance of honesty, etc. The thought that they -either through lies or misperception or exaggeration- would get something like this wrong was inconceivable to us...and yet it happened. How does one trust one’s children again after a blunder like that?
-
How does one trust one’s children again after a blunder like that?
First, you have to determine whether it was a deliberate and conscious lie. If that was the case, then I would tell them that I had lost trust in them and cannot accept their word for anything, that they would have to work to regain the trust.
If it was a question of perception, then you have to apply the "Wisdom of Solomon" to extract the truth from their accounts (taking into account other independent data sources).
So, for example, if my child tells me something bad about another child, or a teacher, or coach, I always FIRST, before I do anything else, or react in any way, get one or two independent accounts of what ACTUALLY transpired. [THESE lessons have been learned, often the hard way, after the first few children]. I invariably find that their story doesn't line up perfectly with reality, since there's a certain amount of subjectivity, and the degree of subjectivity (imposition of interpretation and imagination) is very high among children. So I'll get another kid's account, and if possible also an adult's account, preferably from someone without any kind of personal "stake" in the situation. You can usually get very close to the actual truth by comparing the various accounts ... and filtering out bias. So, for instance, I have a couple of my kids who are always plotting to get the other one in trouble, so I know that I will get accounts that are biased against their enemy as much as possible.
I think that it's important for us parents not to go in after our children's teachers, priests, etc. "guns-a-blazing" after having accepted one child's account at face value. It used to be that if a child got disciplined at school, the parent would double up on it at home. Now, when a school disciplines a child, the parents get up in arms and call for the heads of the teachers. If my child gets in trouble, my first question is, "So what did you do?" It's important for that first reaction NOT to be "How dare that teacher do such and such!" That seems to be the knee-jerk reaction these days.
And, you know, so what if a teacher is not a perfect human being? I fail often as a parent, and these teachers are helping to raise my children. I am grateful for their efforts, and tolerant of their failings, and realize that they are sinful human beings just like the rest of us. It's rather hypocritical that parents who themselves fail all the time feel that they have a right to demand perfection of their children's teachers, and the first reaction is to call for their heads while brandishing torches and pitchforks in response to even the slightest mistake or slip-up. These teachers are undertaking their vacation to help educate the children often at great cost to themselves, and we owe them more than this.
-
I certainly bungled the situation, no doubt about it. Hopefully we will learn from it and improve because of it. Thank you for your excellent commentary, Ladislaus.
-
I have two kids in particular who are sworn enemies, always trying to get each other in trouble.
So they'll often come to me to resolve a dispute in their favor, or to punish the other party for some misdeed.
90% of the time, I am able to interrogate them in such a way that I can get very close to the truth. Question them separately (as law enforcement tend to do) ... so they cannot alter their story to make it more convincing. In those cases where I can't get to the truth in a reasonable amount of time (sometimes I'm too busy to see it through), I just tell them both that I can take no action because both of them have shown themselves to be less than completely honest and I can never know who I can trust to be telling the truth. I am hoping thereby to inspire them to be more honest so as to build up trust (even if it's with the ultimate goal of using said trust as a weapon against their rival).
In any case, RARELY is it the case that they tell a straightforward lie. It's usually a question of "omission". Such-and-such hit me. Really? But they leave out WHY that person hit them, spinning it as though it were a completely unprovoked vicious attack that came out of the blue :laugh1:.
-
I certainly bungled the situation, no doubt about it. Hopefully we will learn from it and improve because of it. Thank you for your excellent commentary, Ladislaus.
It's like that comment attributed to Mark Twain, that it's a pity youth is wasted on the young.
Something similar applies here. There are so many things that I messed up with my first two or three that I would never get wrong any more with my younger three ... since I had learned my lesson the hard way. But we start with little experience and wisdom, and almost only acquire a sufficient amount of it when it's TOO LATE :)
-
I am the OP of this thread. Just wanted to mention that after a few more days of questioning the children and speaking with one of the teachers about the matter, it now seems very unlikely the stories our children passed along to us about being pressured to make the dialogue responses are accurate (and the priest says he has had teacher conferences explicitly stating my children are not to be pressured into making them, per our request).
My apologies to all involved on this specific point. We are rather embarrassed.
This is what you wrote in the OP: Did you ever find out about the first teacher who took your child into the hallway? Did this really happen? If not, then it sounds like your child may have made a blatant lie. If not, I still wonder whether the truth lies somewhere between what your kids said and what the school is saying.
One teacher removed my child from class to speak with him in the hallway about how good and important it is to make the responses, and another teacher told my other child’s class that whoever made the responses would receive two marbles (my child perceived that this was in response to this teachers’ having discovered that he was not making the responses).
-
This is what you wrote in the OP: Did you ever find out about the first teacher who took your child into the hallway? Did this really happen? If not, then it sounds like your child may have made a blatant lie. If not, I still wonder whether the truth lies somewhere between what your kids said and what the school is saying.
One teacher removed my child from class to speak with him in the hallway about how good and important it is to make the responses, and another teacher told my other child’s class that whoever made the responses would receive two marbles (my child perceived that this was in response to this teachers’ having discovered that he was not making the responses).
Well, later that story changed from one teacher taking one of my sons out into the hall, to another teacher taking my other son out into the hall. Then later after continuing my questioning, it turned into “maybe the teacher took me into the hall about something else.”
So...
But here is another weird aspect I am trying to figure out:
Apparently, my spouse and mother, unbeknownst to me, were saying a Novena to help decide whether the kids should go to the school. The kids told us this info on day 7 of the Novena, and we immediately made the decision (my spouse later informing me of the Novena, which sealed the deal for me). Day 9 was the school registration deadline, and because of the curious timing of the “revelations” from our children, the Novena in play, and the “coincidence” of the Novena ending on the registration deadline (combined with the fact that my spouse was suddenly willing to homeschool because of the whole episode, which was not at all their position before this all happened), we thought heaven had answered my spouses prayers, and were at peace with it all.
Now, learning after the fact that it is extremely unlikely our children accurately recounted the matter to us, I am wondering whether heaven had spoken after all.
Could/would Our Lady use mistakes or lies to get us to come to this decision? That seems blasphemous. On the other hand, could heaven make good (ie., the decision) come from evil? I think that answer is yes.
Meanwhile, there are other major things happening in our life, which I will not go into, but I have perceived/wondered/felt that something I am about to do has aroused either the anger of heaven or hell (the latter, I think/Hope), and that this incident is a consequence of my future action, though I could be wrong about that:
Did the devil trick us into making this decision, or did heaven respond, or neither?
All I can say is that I have been relieved I will not have to worry about the kids at the school, and had a great feeling of peace after making the decision, even though this subsequent revelation of inaccuracies somewhat muddies those waters.
I wanted them out anyway, so maybe the peace was purely natural, and not the inspiration of the good angel (or, maybe it is the disturbance of soul caused by the devil who wants me to second guess myself which has muddied the waters). Both possibilities are discussed in the discernment of spirits.
In any case, the rules also say never to make a decision in a state of turmoil.
Consequently, we will, for now, live with the decision and carry on.
-
I think the Novena stuff is just coincidence to be honest. Problem is, when people ask God for a sign or guidance, they'll always look for the answers they want to find. Also as significant as the Novena ending on the registration deadline day may sound, I suspect your spouse and mother probably planned the Novena so it would end then.
-
I think the Novena stuff is just coincidence to be honest. Problem is, when people ask God for a sign or guidance, they'll always look for the answers they want to find. Also as significant as the Novena ending on the registration deadline day may sound, I suspect your spouse and mother probably planned the Novena so it would end then.
They both say otherwise, and the idea was my mother’s (who would have no idea regarding deadlines).
-
I think the Novena stuff is just coincidence to be honest. Problem is, when people ask God for a sign or guidance, they'll always look for the answers they want to find. Also as significant as the Novena ending on the registration deadline day may sound, I suspect your spouse and mother probably planned the Novena so it would end then.
I also don't see why it ending on that day couldn't have meant just the opposite: to register
-
I also don't see why it ending on that day couldn't have meant just the opposite: to register
The interpretation my spouse gave it (whose inclination was to register) was the opposite, mostly because of the misinformation reported on the 7th day.
I guess the primary argument in favor of not registering, however, is the discernment of spirits:
If we were being influenced by the devil in disguise as an answer from heaven, then the rules for the discernment of spirits say we should have been in a state of agitation, whereas it is peace (despite some slight temporary muddying of the waters after learning our children had not given us the objective facts).
And more than this, the school has been a constant source of agitation and contention in the family (because of the sspx sellout) which was only ever very begrudgingly consented to in order to lighten the load on the homefront, and as a perceived lesser evil/necessity. But now there is peace without the school.
Finally, and perhaps this is the biggest sign in favor of receiving an answer to the Novena against enrollment at the school, my spouses sudden resignation and acceptance of homeschooling (albeit gained on the basis of false info, it has remained nonetheless), where before it was absolutely a non-option.
In any case, whatever the truth of the matter is, this is the course we have decided to take, and we are happy with it.
-
I think the Novena stuff is just coincidence to be honest. Problem is, when people ask God for a sign or guidance, they'll always look for the answers they want to find. Also as significant as the Novena ending on the registration deadline day may sound, I suspect your spouse and mother probably planned the Novena so it would end then.
Starting a novena without realizing it would end on the exact "perfect" day has happened here several times, especially with longer novenas like 9 or 13 week (St Anthony) novenas. Just a few months ago I was moved to start a novena to St Rita one evening. It was a novena that had been sitting in my book for years yet for some reason, it jumped out at me that evening and I started it. I did not know until the next day that it was going to end exactly on her feast day. I take those as little graces to reassure us that what happens next is truly Providential and not just us looking for signs or micro-managing our prayers.
OP, we have also experienced a tumultuous answer to a novena much like yours. Not having to do with school but with a major life change. What happened during that 54 days was in many ways an evil. It was very uncomfortable, very difficult and inconvenient. Embarrassing and quite public. But it was very clearly and glaringly the very specific answer to a very specific question and underneath all that drama we could not have been happier or more at peace with it. I understand what that is like and it sounds like you are on the right track.
-
I was in Catholic school before Vatican II. We never had to give any responses. The Dialog Mass is one reason why I was never keen on the SSPX. Yes, I know it's traditional to French Catholics, but it isn't to Americans. Maybe I would have been more receptive to it if the novus ordo never happened, but that Mass soured me on any participation other than internal.
-
I was in Catholic school before Vatican II. We never had to give any responses. The Dialog Mass is one reason why I was never keen on the SSPX. Yes, I know it's traditional to French Catholics, but it isn't to Americans. Maybe I would have been more receptive to it if the novus ordo never happened, but that Mass soured me on any participation other than internal.
The Dialogue Mass is only a couple decades older than the NO I believe, at least in terms of widespread implementation. It may be pre-Vatican 2, but Vatican 2 was just the modernist coup de t'at, they had great influence and spread a lot of errors even before the council.
-
The Dialogue Mass is only a couple decades older than the NO I believe, at least in terms of widespread implementation. It may be pre-Vatican 2, but Vatican 2 was just the modernist coup de t'at, they had great influence and spread a lot of errors even before the council.
Exactly correct.
In fact, the dialogue Mass has only been "traditional" in France since the death of St. Pius X (i.e., 100 years +/-).
Before that, it was unheard of anywhere in the world.
-
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/dialogue.pdf
"We conclude this article at the point where we began. The Dialogue Mass is nothing more than a liturgical praxis. Although it may not be Modernist it is undoubtedly MODERN and imbued with the spirit of the age which produced it as Joseph Jungman in Missarum Solmenia frankly admits" ,
“...from the Dialogue Mass the Faithful gain a living knowledge of the actual course of the Mass and so they can follow the Low Mass as well as the solemn Mass with an entirely new understanding. To have been deprived of such an understanding much longer would not have been tolerable even to the masses in this age of advanced education and enhanced self consciousness. But what is even more important, now that the Faithful answer the priest and concur in his prayers, sacrifice with him and communicate with him, they become properly conscious for the first time of their dignity as Christians.” (!)
"Even if it is readily conceded that Dialogue Mass is neither Modernist nor heretical this is not to say that it is desirable. Many practices of the Church in previous centuries were abandoned for good reasons and it is most unwise to revive them now. Even if there was a liturgy in the early Church which approximated to the Dialogue Mass it is well known that there was also Mass in the vernacular, Communion under two kinds and in the hand, Mass sometimes celebrated facing the people and a married priesthood (even the first Pope was married!). None of these practices are in themselves against the Faith and were quite legitimate but recent history has proved what dire consequences have ensued when many of them were revived after the Second Vatican Counci"
By Fr. Black, SSPX
-
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/dialogue.pdf
"We conclude this article at the point where we began. The Dialogue Mass is nothing more than a liturgical praxis. Although it may not be Modernist it is undoubtedly MODERN and imbued with the spirit of the age which produced it as Joseph Jungman in Missarum Solmenia frankly admits" ,
“...from the Dialogue Mass the Faithful gain a living knowledge of the actual course of the Mass and so they can follow the Low Mass as well as the solemn Mass with an entirely new understanding. To have been deprived of such an understanding much longer would not have been tolerable even to the masses in this age of advanced education and enhanced self consciousness. But what is even more important, now that the Faithful answer the priest and concur in his prayers, sacrifice with him and communicate with him, they become properly conscious for the first time of their dignity as Christians.” (!)
"Even if it is readily conceded that Dialogue Mass is neither Modernist nor heretical this is not to say that it is desirable. Many practices of the Church in previous centuries were abandoned for good reasons and it is most unwise to revive them now. Even if there was a liturgy in the early Church which approximated to the Dialogue Mass it is well known that there was also Mass in the vernacular, Communion under two kinds and in the hand, Mass sometimes celebrated facing the people and a married priesthood (even the first Pope was married!). None of these practices are in themselves against the Faith and were quite legitimate but recent history has proved what dire consequences have ensued when many of them were revived after the Second Vatican Counci"
By Fr. Black, SSPX
I disagree with Fr. Black:
It is true that the dialogue Mass may not be heretical (i.e., it is still the very same Roman missal), but by what fiction does one distinguish between as Mass which is admittedly "modernist praxis" but somehow not "modernist?"
If it is modernist in praxis, then it is modernist in principle.
The principles of the dialogue Mass are the same as those found in the Novus Ordo: Active participation conceived of only as oral participation; a misconceived "right" of the faithful to "participate" in the sacred functions ("Hey, how come only the priest gets to do stuff?!?!"); following from this, a blurring of th edistinction between the ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of the faithful; a variety of usages to be decided upon by whatever priest happens to be saying Mass (as with the elimination of the sacred language, this introductin of several usages would be used -and was designed- to fracture the unity of faith by fracturing the unity in worship); etc; etc.
Fr. Black is pulling punches when he should be pouring it on.
-
I disagree with Fr. Black:
It is true that the dialogue Mass may not be heretical (i.e., it is still the very same Roman missal), but by what fiction does one distinguish between as Mass which is admittedly "modernist praxis" but somehow not "modernist?"
If it is modernist in praxis, then it is modernist in principle.
The principles of the dialogue Mass are the same as those found in the Novus Ordo: Active participation conceived of only as oral participation; a misconceived "right" of the faithful to "participate" in the sacred functions ("Hey, how come only the priest gets to do stuff?!?!"); following from this, a blurring of th edistinction between the ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of the faithful; a variety of usages to be decided upon by whatever priest happens to be saying Mass (as with the elimination of the sacred language, this introductin of several usages would be used -and was designed- to fracture the unity of faith by fracturing the unity in worship); etc; etc.
Fr. Black is pulling punches when he should be pouring it on.
In fact, the idea of "participation" itself is suspicious.
Our great-grandparents did not go to church on Sunday to "participate in Mass."
They "went to Mass" or "went to go hear Mass."
Mass was something the PRIEST did, not something we all did.
It doesn't matter that it was always true that, yes, when we join our intentions to that of the priest, we are in that sense participation (even actively, though interiorly).
The modernist liturgical innovators took that reality and made a concrete praxis of it.
But doing that is out of place (as proven by 1900 years of tradition to the contrary).
PS: add to the modernist principles above that of using the Mass as a catechism or teaching tool, and also that of bending the Mass to the (perceived) needs of the apostolate.
The dialogue Mass has spawned only poisoned, modernist fruit: It gave the go ahead to further experimentation, like the new Holy Week and eventually the new Mass.
-
In fact, the idea of "participation" itself is suspicious.
Our great-grandparents did not go to church on Sunday to "participate in Mass."
They "went to Mass" or "went to go hear Mass."
Mass was something the PRIEST did, not something we all did.
It doesn't matter that it was always true that, yes, when we join our intentions to that of the priest, we are in that sense participation (even actively, though interiorly).
The modernist liturgical innovators took that reality and made a concrete praxis of it.
But doing that is out of place (as proven by 1900 years of tradition to the contrary).
PS: add to the modernist principles above that of using the Mass as a catechism or teaching tool, and also that of bending the Mass to the (perceived) needs of the apostolate.
The dialogue Mass has spawned only poisoned, modernist fruit: It gave the go ahead to further experimentation, like the new Holy Week and eventually the new Mass.
To split hairs, we "assist" at Mass, which is to say we assist when we participate with the priest as if at the foot of the cross. We do not participate by giving the responses - that is what the Altar Boys do, they respond for the whole congregation, which is why they should be taught to take extra care to respond very clearly, to strike their breast saying "mea culpa" with purpose, not racing through it.
The congregation participates when they stand, sit, kneel, strike our breast, by making the sign of the cross, bowing our heads etc. at the appropriate times, and by adoring Our Lord at the Consecration and so on. That is how we, the congregation participate, not by diologging, which has no place during the Holy Sacrifice.
-
As recent as 1904, in Father Lasance's "Prayerbook for Religious" the index lists 29 methods for hearing Mass.
Some methods are; in reparation, in honour of the passion, the sorrows of Mary, the Blessed Sacrament, in thanksgiving, in petition, in honour of your patron or any other saint, for each day of the week, the faithful departed etc etc etc.
This book was written for monks, nuns and brothers. They were not encouraged to any form of participation and certainly the faithful wouldn't have been either.
Personal participation at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is what gave the church her many saints and martyrs.
Only a consecrated priest can offer Mass. The faithful can adore, give thanks, make reparation and then petition; the 4 aims of the Mass for the faithful.
Be silent while the priest fulfills his sacred ministry.
P.S. The purpose of the bells at Mass are to let us know when something important is about to happen so we can interrupt our devotion and PAY ATTENTION>
-
As recent as 1904, in Father Lasance's "Prayerbook for Religious" the index lists 29 methods for hearing Mass.
Some methods are; in reparation, in honour of the passion, the sorrows of Mary, the Blessed Sacrament, in thanksgiving, in petition, in honour of your patron or any other saint, for each day of the week, the faithful departed etc etc etc.
This book was written for monks, nuns and brothers. They were not encouraged to any form of participation and certainly the faithful wouldn't have been either.
Personal participation at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is what gave the church her many saints and martyrs.
Only a consecrated priest can offer Mass. The faithful can adore, give thanks, make reparation and then petition; the 4 aims of the Mass for the faithful.
Be silent while the priest fulfills his sacred ministry.
P.S. The purpose of the bells at Mass are to let us know when something important is about to happen so we can interrupt our devotion and PAY ATTENTION>
Sorry I didn't mean to post this anonymously.
-
Attending SSPX school is the same as attending any other non Catholic school.
Do your best to not have them go to Mass at all.
Failing that, they must under no circuмstances receive the sacraments from SSPX priests. This would be a grave sacrilege.
Treat their Masses if you have to attend, like you would going to a funeral or wedding in the SSPX: be present but not participating.
-
Attending SSPX school is the same as attending any other non Catholic school.
Do your best to not have them go to Mass at all.
Failing that, they must under no circuмstances receive the sacraments from SSPX priests. This would be a grave sacrilege.
Treat their Masses if you have to attend, like you would going to a funeral or wedding in the SSPX: be present but not participating.
Can you please explain why you believe receiving sacraments from SSPX priests is sacrilegious?
-
Attending SSPX school is the same as attending any other non Catholic school.
Do your best to not have them go to Mass at all.
Failing that, they must under no circuмstances receive the sacraments from SSPX priests. This would be a grave sacrilege.
Treat their Masses if you have to attend, like you would going to a funeral or wedding in the SSPX: be present but not participating.
I wouldn't say grave sacrilege. And I don't attend SSPX anymore, even though that means I only get Mass once a month.
-
I wouldn't say grave sacrilege. And I don't attend SSPX anymore, even though that means I only get Mass once a month.
You literally did say grave sacrilege. Those exact words.
-
Can you please explain why you believe receiving sacraments from SSPX priests is sacrilegious?
For the same reason St. Hermenegild vigorously refused communion from an Arian bishop. Because Modernism is a heresy. And if you align yourself with that, as the SSPX and all other indult groups do, then you spit in the face of Our Lord.
-
You literally did say grave sacrilege. Those exact words.
That was not me.
-
I wouldn't say grave sacrilege. And I don't attend SSPX anymore, even though that means I only get Mass once a month.
or rather THIS was not me.
I did say grave sacrilege and meant it, for the reasons above.
-
You literally did say grave sacrilege. Those exact words.
As I read it Anonymous 47 is a different person from Anonymous 49.
That's where all these unnecessary anonymouses causes confusion.
-
As I read it Anonymous 47 is a different person from Anonymous 49.
That's where all these unnecessary anonymouses causes confusion.
Agreed Nadir. I also don't like that even when you don't post anonymously, if you edit your post and forget to re-click the box, your (edited) post becomes anonymous.
-
Agreed Nadir. I also don't like that even when you don't post anonymously, if you edit your post and forget to re-click the box, your (edited) post becomes anonymous.
Going to edit in a minute to try this..
-
Going to edit in a minute to try this..
It won't let me edit at all.
-
I’m sure there are a few SSPX chapels and other independent, society of St Peter chapels etc that rejected heresy of modernism and sodomy.
-
It won't let me edit at all.
Not sure if this is Stubborn. If not, you can't edit anonymous posts. The first post has to be with a user name/non-anonymous.
-
Not sure if this is Stubborn. If not, you can't edit anonymous posts. The first post has to be with a user name/non-anonymous.
Yes, both are my posts. I will take a screen shot of the error message I get when I try to modify this post.
Ahhh, I did it wrong before - you have to click "not anonymous" when you modify.
-
Yes, both are my posts. I will take a screen shot of the error message I get when I try to modify this post.
Ahhh, I did it wrong before - you have to click "not anonymous" when you modify.
Really? That must have changed then...let me try it.
-
Really? That must have changed then...let me try it.
Yes, there is an error message now...Matthew must have corrected this. Good to know!
-
They are an organization based in France and started by a French archbishop — therefore, they will retain French customs. Like the Dialogue Mass.
Even in the early sixties there was a saying that the three important things for a French man were: his food, his mistress and his dog. Now another Frenchman, The Great Monarch (Muhamad Bin Salman?) is going to come and clear up all the mess!
-
Even in the early sixties there was a saying that the three important things for a French man were: his food, his mistress and his dog. Now another Frenchman, The Great Monarch (Muhamad Bin Salman?) is going to come and clear up all the mess!
what?
-
what?
Even in the early sixties there was a saying that the three important things for a French man were: his food, his mistress and his dog. Now another Frenchman, The Great Monarch (Muhamad Bin Salman?) is going to come and clear up all the mess!
-
I was asking about the bit I had bolded.
-
I’m sure there are a few SSPX chapels and other independent, society of St Peter chapels etc that rejected heresy of modernism and sodomy.
You don't reject a heretic and obey him at the same time.
They are all submitted to the Conciliar Church is some way or another.