Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on September 24, 2023, 12:08:24 PM
-
Taking advantage of today's Gospel reading admonition to "be of one mind and one spirit," the priest began the sermon announcements by acknowledging that, although the Church does not normally specify any particular Mass posturess for the faithful, he exhorted us to stand during the Kyrie (and other parts of the Mass where the faithful ought to sing, such as the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, etc.).
As I sat there wondering how the priest (who faces the altar during the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei) could know that a handful of people (like 5-6?) retained the old custom of kneeling during those parts at a sung Mass, I also wondered why such a miniscule miniscule number was troubling him.
In any case, I thought it might be productive to review the history of this push for the faithful to adopt uniform, modernist Mass postures, in order that the change in our chapel can be seen within context.
The IHM chapel was started back in 1977, and from that time until the mid-2000's, the priests said low Mass quietly (i.e., not loud, as though they were addressing the faithful, like it was important for them to hear the words or something), and for sung Masses, the faithful remained kneeling when the priest ascended the altar after the prayers at the foot of the altar, during the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. They also remained kneeling during the incensing of the faithful, until the thurifer turned toward them to incense them.
This custom lasted 40+ years.
In 2007, Fr. Beck was pastor at this chapel, when Roman Hymnals showed up in all the pews one day. There was a push for the faithful to sing. Since the ralliement was as yet undetected at this time, I suspected nothing more. The Mass postures hadn't changed yet, but I seem to recall that the priests at/after this time began to say low Mass in loud voices (can anyone confirm? There are several lurkers from IHM who frequent this board).
Note that during this time (say from 2003 - 2013), Fr. LeRoux had displaced +Williamson in Winona, and imported modernist French liturgical customs to Winona. Since St. Paul is proximate to Winona, and many parishioners visited there, I recall hearing some of the women complaining that in Winona the faithful now stand during the Kyrie, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and all the rest mentioned above. Well, "it was a seminary," we told ourselves (at least until 2010-2012 rolled around). "Things are always a little different there."
But the post-Williamson priests were being given a new branded formation, consistent with the French liturgical modernism and the overall goals of the ralliement, by which the SSPX inched closer and closer to conciliar practices (e.g., interpreting "active participation" as vocal participation).
In early 2018, when Fr. Daniel Dailey was pastor (ordained in 2010, with a formation imparted under the new LeRoux regime), I arrived in the chapel one day to find inserts in all the pews instructing the faithful on new Mass postures:
Breaking 40+ years of local custom, we were now to adopt the French/modernist postures (as Fr. Brown confirmed today, so that we could all sing): Congregational singing was now to be the norm. We need to be active.
Incidentally (but not coincidentally), you will note that this trend mirrors the advance and proliferation of dialogue Masses in the USA (where once again, they were never the custom).
So, while Fr. and his band of tattlers may be distraught that 5-6 people continue the traditional and local liturgical, pre-ralliement Mass postures which prevailed here for over 40 years, and urge us to unity in being of one mind in worship, I would simply offer Fr.'s own acknowledgement back to him, that the Church makes no such requirement regarding uniformity in the Mass postures of the faithful, and that in saner times, the Church never thought it necessary to enforce such unity (as the lack of rubrics for the faithful evinces).
For my part, I think it is a shame that 99.9% of the chapel was so easily and mindlessly led away from their/our prevailing custom here. Was the SSPX teaching us wrongly for 40 years? Was our worship defective all along? Were we misled? Are those few of us who still honor the old ways such an unbearable sign of contradiction that we must be snuffed out? Is our example dangerous to preserving the status quo by serving as a reminder of the practice which once prevailed (in the same way the Winona seminary was)?
-
Dumb question, are postures for the laity prescribed in the Pian Missal et seq, or are they just long-standing custom? And do they vary with time and place?
I'm not sure that the Pian Missal even presupposes that there are any faithful in attendance, aside from the acolytes.
-
So basically... "Conform or else!"...? :incense:
We usually kneel for the Kyrie, Santus and Agnus Dei... (unless we have to sit to hold or contain the little boys or baby). Our chapel and the other Mass location in state which I used to attend both use the pre-1955 missal. I remember being at an SSPX chapel in NC once while on vacation and being a little weirded out as to why they everyone remained standing after the Sanctus or Agnus Dei had started. It reminded me too much of my childhood novus ordo days.
I don't remember what happened at the IHM church when we were in MN (I was outside with the baby most of the time)... Wait... It was a low Mass because of the summer time. So, there would have been no Kyrie, Sanctus, or Agnus Dei. 😅
Good thread! I am interested to hear what else people might have to say about this topic.
-
For your reading enjoyment. TLDR: laity mass postures is a mess and always has been.
https://wdtprs.com/2020/02/ask-father-what-are-the-authentic-rubrics-postures-for-lay-people-at-the-traditional-latin-mass-are-we-doing-it-wrong/
-
For your reading enjoyment. TLDR: laity mass postures is a mess and always has been.
https://wdtprs.com/2020/02/ask-father-what-are-the-authentic-rubrics-postures-for-lay-people-at-the-traditional-latin-mass-are-we-doing-it-wrong/
Yes, just as I thought, there is no one way for the laity to assist. Kneeling during the Canon would seem to be dictated out of sheer reverence if nothing else, but not even this is prescribed. It's all organically developed custom.
-
I remember being at an SSPX chapel in NC once while on vacation and being a little weirded out as to why they everyone remained standing after the Sanctus or Agnus Dei had started. It reminded me too much of my childhood novus ordo days.
At the North Carolina SSPX chapel, it's mixed on standing and kneeling for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei. I've noticed lately that more people are kneeling than standing now.
-
For your reading enjoyment. TLDR: laity mass postures is a mess and always has been.
https://wdtprs.com/2020/02/ask-father-what-are-the-authentic-rubrics-postures-for-lay-people-at-the-traditional-latin-mass-are-we-doing-it-wrong/
The New Roman Missal of Fr. Lasance 1945 contradicts what Fr. Z quotes.
The missal states to kneel from the Sanctus till Communion for ALL Masses also for the Ite Missa Est and Blessing.
-
The New Roman Missal of Fr. Lasance 1945 contradicts what Fr. Z quotes.
The missal states to kneel from the Sanctus till Communion for ALL Masses also for the Ite Missa Est and Blessing.
Well, yes, but is that just Fr Lasance's recommendation, or does it have any sort of official status (whatever that might be)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of everyone sitting, standing, or kneeling in unison, I just have to think it is more custom than absolute requirement.
-
We
Well, yes, but is that just Fr Lasance's recommendation, or does it have any sort of official status (whatever that might be)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of everyone sitting, standing, or kneeling in unison, I just have to think it is more custom than absolute requirement.
Well, what it states at the top of the page is:-
"WHEN TO KNEEL, STAND OR SIT
AT LOW, HIGH, REQUIEM OR SOLEMN MASS"
According to custom in American churches when there is no
canonical choir, and no one to give a sign for standing, kneeling etc
the following procedure may be observed:"
This was what I observed in my church when I was a younger.
-
Well, yes, but is that just Fr Lasance's recommendation, or does it have any sort of official status (whatever that might be)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of everyone sitting, standing, or kneeling in unison, I just have to think it is more custom than absolute requirement.
That's half the point: There are no rubrics for the faithful, so why overthrow a 40+ year custom (itself based on preconciliar custom here), and implement French modernist liturgical movement nonsense?
The other half of the point is that doing so furthers the SSPX ralliement by coming to terms with modernist liturgical praxis (i.e., "active participation" = vocal participation).
Antichrist Rome will certainly be clapping their hands, and encouraging Menzingen in these intiiatives.
-
The New Roman Missal of Fr. Lasance 1945 contradicts what Fr. Z quotes.
The missal states to kneel from the Sanctus till Communion for ALL Masses also for the Ite Missa Est and Blessing.
It seems to me it’s a bit different everywhere you go, even in SSPX chapels. Some places people do a variety within the Mass. My best guess is that pre-V2, people followed local customs as given by the diocesan bishop or parish priest.
-
WeWell, what it states at the top of the page is:-
"WHEN TO KNEEL, STAND OR SIT
AT LOW, HIGH, REQUIEM OR SOLEMN MASS"
According to custom in American churches when there is no
canonical choir, and no one to give a sign for standing, kneeling etc
the following procedure may be observed:"
This was what I observed in my church when I was a younger.
Again, just custom, as Fr Lasance himself notes (not to say that it is wrong or worthless). As SeanJohnson notes above, there are no rubrics for the faithful. What you cite does not rise to the level of rubrics.
I agree, the SSPX shouldn't be coming in and changing around customs that Americans are used to.
-
The French and German modernists are who led the way at V2. Their local customs were V2-like long before 1960. The French/German priests in the sspx should recognize their disordered liturgical past and be less haughty towards americans. But I think history is repeating itself and the French/germans are leading the way in the infiltration of the new-sspx.
-
The Church has never imposed customs upon any of the faithful.
Apart from the Roman Rite, missionaries have always tried to respect and consider the local customs.
It is even more absurd when you impose something on a nation on which its faithful already have their Catholic customs. That is not traditional at all.
No other congregation ever imposed novelties like this anywhere in the world, as far as I am aware.
-
It is even more absurd when you impose something on a nation on which its faithful already have their Catholic customs. That is not traditional at all.
The SSPX is no longer Traditional... ;)
I was at St. Nicolas in Paris for the first time back in 2000, and the children insisted that we were at the Novus Ordo because it was so much like the N.O.
A friend of mine says the new postures are actually the 1965 "rubrics" but I don't know for sure.
This same friend said the old priest from Greenwood, Indiana preached a sermon once about mass postures and said that we should follow the priest and not the choir: if the priest waits for the choir, then keep standing at the Sanctus, but if he doesn't wait for the choir, kneel. This makes perfect sense.
-
For your reading enjoyment. TLDR: laity mass postures is a mess and always has been.
https://wdtprs.com/2020/02/ask-father-what-are-the-authentic-rubrics-postures-for-lay-people-at-the-traditional-latin-mass-are-we-doing-it-wrong/
It was indeed reading enjoyment! Thank you for the excellent resource, Angelus.
I must say, it is very edifying to see a congregation doing things in unison, whether it be praying the Rosary reverently, or the postures at Mass. Order and harmony come from God and the good angels. It minimises distractions, aids prayer and virtue, and helps establish the peace of God in souls.
I disagree with what Father says about variations within a congregation being okay... unless it were matter of principle - an example which comes to mind is some good soul who has not yet discovered Tradition who receives Holy Communion in the NOM and insists on kneeling in spite of the fact that everyone else is standing.
It's worth copying a couple of those tables from your link:
He gives variations for places where it is not customary to kneel for the whole Canon. The “red booklet” is in the right column.
(https://wdtprs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20_02_15_chart_postures_01.jpg)
And… this table follows Fortescue/O’Connell/Reid for 1962MR.
(https://wdtprs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20_02_15_chart_postures_02.jpg)
I wouldn’t get overly worked up about this. There are no official rubrics assigned by the Church for the laity at the TLM. However, there are customs based on what the clergy are to do in choir. Variations are okay, even within a congregation.
Variations, yes. However, if you are trying to stand out, to be different, I’d examine your conscience.
-
The “red booklet” is in the right column.
(https://wdtprs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20_02_15_chart_postures_01.jpg)
And… this table follows Fortescue/O’Connell/Reid for 1962MR.
(https://wdtprs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20_02_15_chart_postures_02.jpg)
:incense:“FOR YOUR PENANCE, COMMIT THESE TWO CHARTS TO MEMORY. I’LL TEST YOU NEXT SATURDAY AT 6:30 AM. NOW, MAKE YOUR ACT OF CONTRITION.” :facepalm:
-
:incense:“FOR YOUR PENANCE, COMMIT THESE TWO CHARTS TO MEMORY. I’LL TEST YOU NEXT SATURDAY AT 6:30 AM. NOW, MAKE YOUR ACT OF CONTRITION.” :facepalm:
Sorry, I'm out of town next Saturday!
-
Was the SSPX teaching us wrongly for 40 years? Was our worship defective all along? Were we misled? Are those few of us who still honor the old ways such an unbearable sign of contradiction that we must be snuffed out? Is our example dangerous to preserving the status quo by serving as a reminder of the practice which once prevailed (in the same way the Winona seminary was)?
Is it possible that you tend to consider people have worse intentions than they do, and that there is some big conspiracy?
I'm not surprised Fr. Beck wanted the faithful to sing. The Beck family used to sell tapes of them singing.
Fr. Le Roux may not have thought to learn local tradition, and would most likely prefer the traditions of his country instead, and by teaching the seminarians, they would then teach those traditions at the chapels they serve thinking that is how it's supposed to be done.
I admit it is frustrating. I'm confused now on what the faithful and servers should do because there has been so many changes over the years, and now there's a large family that likes serving the new seminary way, and leading hymns during mass, which breaks the peaceful silence. I think they are somewhat friendly to the NOM, but I've never known if hymns during Mass is normal for TLM. I think we used to only ever sing before and after.
As for noisy priests, Fr Post comes to mind, as well as a couple of others, who seem unable to properly whisper or they just don't care to. Any other Fr. Le Roux formed priest I can remember says the mass very quietly, even impossible to make out 90% of what they say if standing right next to them, though their "Dominus vobiscuм" and such is probably louder than it needs to be.
I would really like some videos and PDF copies of book sources showing/telling how low and high Mass were served and attended by the faithful, so I would have leverage to hold firm to what our traditions are.
There is no problem, though, with changing traditions for the better as long as it doesn't go against Church laws and Tradition. Fr. Le Roux likes to be practical, so it would not be surprising if he made a practical change, though some of what is practical is quite subjective and equally as good as other ways of doing things.
-
That is, videos and books from at least before 50s/60s
-
Fr. Le Roux may not have thought to learn local tradition, and would most likely prefer the traditions of his country instead, and by teaching the seminarians, they would then teach those traditions at the chapels they serve thinking that is how it's supposed to be done.
This is exactly the problem.
A missionary has to understand that he is on someone else's country. You can't just get there and impose your own culture on people.
What is next? Is he going to make his sermons in French?
-
This is exactly the problem.
A missionary has to understand that he is on someone else's country. You can't just get there and impose your own culture on people.
What is next? Is he going to make his sermons in French?
Well said.
-
This is exactly the problem.
A missionary has to understand that he is on someone else's country. You can't just get there and impose your own culture on people.
What is next? Is he going to make his sermons in French?
I hear sermons in French. :confused: Oh, that’s because the Mass is in Quebec! :incense::pray:
-
This is exactly the problem.
A missionary has to understand that he is on someone else's country. You can't just get there and impose your own culture on people.
What is next? Is he going to make his sermons in French?
Dear Giovanni Berto,
A well-informed birdie said that even though Bishop Fellay did not want the "dialogue mass" to be said in the new seminary in Virginia because "it is not the American custom", Fr. LeRoux did it anyway. Here's hoping Fr. Goldade corrects that. Unfortunately, all the SSPX schools impose the "dialogue mass" on their innocent students. Where are the parents' complaints? It was an innovation in France in the 1920's--that does not make it a tradition.
-
French people, by and large, are snobs and think their way is the only way. Europeans especially look down on American customs, both religious and non.
-
French people, by and large, are snobs and think their way is the only way. Europeans especially look down on American customs, both religious and non.
To be fair, while they are not snobs (at least not in the main), Americans think exactly the same way --- "our way is the only way". They regard "foreign countries" as not worthy of learning anything about, and any travel they do to these countries is more along the lines of treating them either as holiday resorts or glorified theme parks.
-
To be fair, while they are not snobs (at least not in the main), Americans think exactly the same way --- "our way is the only way". They regard "foreign countries" as not worthy of learning anything about, and any travel they do to these countries is more along the lines of treating them either as holiday resorts or glorified theme parks.
I am neither, and I can tell you that Americans do have a somewhat bad name, but nothing beats the French.
I travelled once to Europe not so long ago. I was glad when I met Americans, because they were polite.
There was a funny incident in the flight from Florence to Paris, when a French woman noticed that we did not speak French (me and my wife). She looked genuined puzzled, like she simply could not understand how someone who didn't speak any French could go to Paris. Fortunately, we were there only for a flight connection.
-
SSPX Florida where Father Toupee Vernoy is prior, all SSPX chapels there observe standing at Kyrie and while choir sings. I feel it is modernists. Why don't more people fight this. I feel lots of SSPX parishioners are sheep.
-
I am neither, and I can tell you that Americans do have a somewhat bad name, but nothing beats the French.
I travelled once to Europe not so long ago. I was glad when I met Americans, because they were polite.
There was a funny incident in the flight from Florence to Paris, when a French woman noticed that we did not speak French (me and my wife). She looked genuined puzzled, like she simply could not understand how someone who didn't speak any French could go to Paris. Fortunately, we were there only for a flight connection.
I have visited French-speaking countries four times (France proper, St-Martin twice, and Quebec), and while I am a long way from being fluent in French (two years in college), I was able to conduct simple everyday transactions in French, and it was very much appreciated. I only got stuck once, at a patisserie in Paris, when I ordered a croque-monsieur (delicieux!), the young lady at the counter asked me, in French, if I wanted it microwaved, and seeing my puzzlement, she whispered in English "microwave?".
They're not rude, they are just the same as Americans would be if the situation were reversed, if you can speak French, they appreciate it, just as an American service worker would prefer that foreigners use English if they can.
-
There’s an old adage:
“The way I learned it is the right way.”
Meaning, even if you were taught wrongly, you believe you are correct, and take offense at having someone telling you otherwise.
I get that.
But that’s not exactly what’s going on here.
While there have always been slight regional variations, it happens that many of the liturgical customs in the French/Germanic countries were born of the liturgical movement (which by 1920 was no longer animated by Catholic liturgical principles).
So it’s not firstly a matter of French vs American preferences, but traditional vs modernist praxis.
My guess is that the French of 1850 would not find agreeable many of the things which pass for traditional Western n France in 1950 (ie even in some French and Germanic SSPX chapels, where the Gospel and Epistle are read at the altar in the vernacular, etc.).
THAT’s the primary objection to importing French liturgical customs to America: It’s not that they’re French, but that they’re modernist.
-
There’s an old adage:
“The way I learned it is the right way.”
Meaning, even if you were taught wrongly, you believe you are correct, and take offense at having someone telling you otherwise.
I get that.
But that’s not exactly what’s going on here.
While there have always been slight regional variations, it happens that many of the liturgical customs in the French/Germanic countries were born of the liturgical movement (which by 1920 was no longer animated by Catholic liturgical principles).
So it’s not firstly a matter of French vs American preferences, but traditional vs modernist praxis.
My guess is that the French of 1850 would not find agreeable many of the things which pass for traditional Western n France in 1950 (ie even in some French and Germanic SSPX chapels, where the Gospel and Epistle are read at the altar in the vernacular, etc.).
THAT’s the primary objection to importing French liturgical customs to America: It’s not that they’re French, but that they’re modernist.
Amen! Thank you Sean for making this point.
-
I am glad you raised this. I am working in a paper on this issue. I believe that the priest had no right to change custom after 40 years. I have the same problem in Florida. SSPX Florida has been doing it the French way(for lack of a better word) for quite some time (but not over 30 years). I would suggest that your group of 4 or 5 continue the custom the old way. If you do not , the custom will end and a new one begins. Custom after a period of time becomes law. Under the Canon Law custom can become law and cannot be changed except for serious reasons. Just because there are a group of priests who want to change the posture orders does not give them the right to do it.
-
I am glad you raised this. I am working in a paper on this issue. I believe that the priest had no right to change custom after 40 years. I have the same problem in Florida. SSPX Florida has been doing it the French way(for lack of a better word) for quite some time (but not over 30 years). I would suggest that your group of 4 or 5 continue the custom the old way. If you do not , the custom will end and a new one begins. Custom after a period of time becomes law. Under the Canon Law custom can become law and cannot be changed except for serious reasons. Just because there are a group of priests who want to change the posture orders does not give them the right to do it.
We have no intention of changing.