Are you serious? That was the kiss of peace, done by clerics during a solemn high Mass. Completely traditional.

I hope you're not a troll.

P.S.
I have a feeling there are quite a few things you don't know about.  

I recently watched a video of a solemn high Mass at a SSPX church where 3 priests were residing. After the Agnus Dei, the main priest turned and hugged the second priest...

Is there something I don't know about?

1. I can tell you're young. At least I hope so, given your ignorance of something as simple as the rubrics of a Solemn High Mass.

2. If you're a young man, why haven't you spent any time trying out a vocation at a traditional seminary? Oh, I know -- the usual answer is "I like girls". Yes, that must mean you're called to marriage.  Of course! All priests are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, so a man attracted to women can't possibly have a vocation! Is that what you think?

Seriously though, every good Traditional priest you meet "likes girls" as much as you do, in other words they are attracted to females. These men have simply made a sacrifice for God. In fact, I heard that if a young man ISN'T attracted to girls, he would probably be dismissed from the seminary, as the Church isn't looking for a bunch of homos to be priests...

It's nice to get two answers so quickly and I appreciate that but what I don't appreciate is Matthew's demeaning attitude towards me and for bringing up some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ topic. This type of attitude is more of a "better than thou" type which is one of the big problems with the traditional movement, there are many traditional Catholic people that suffer from intellectual pride when it comes to answering Catholic questions and I would recommend that Matthew sincerely consider my constructive criticism.

There was no reason to say that "there are probably a lot of things that I don't know about" and to jump to the conclusion that I was inferring there was any type of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions at the Mass. Also, the "are you serious" comment was totally uncalled for. You might not have considered the fact that solemn high Masses with 3 traditional priests are not a common thing at all parishes when many of these parishes are lucky to have a traveling priest who provides the Mass and sacraments once a week at best.

The reason I asked was because I think I might have only seen a solemn high Mass with three priests said once in my life and I didn't notice it then, it was years ago. I was thinking that this "sign of peace" gesture might have crept into the Mass from the Novus Ordo since the SSPX is now negotiating with Rome, but I was obviously wrong.

Just so you know, I have been a traditional Catholic for over 30 years and have been with many parishes around the country during that time, both SSPX and sedevacante however I am no longer going to the SSPX.

👍🏻

There was no reason to say that "there are probably a lot of things that I don't know about" and to jump to the conclusion that I was inferring there was any type of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ actions at the Mass. Also, the "are you serious" comment was totally uncalled for.

1. You've been registered on CathInfo for a year. On a forum going back to 2006, that's a newbie. I don't know you at all. I get trolls here all the time.

2. You called it "hugging". I've been on CathInfo a long time (14+ years), and no one else has ever referred that way to the Kiss of Peace -- despite the fact that most Trads don't have access to a Solemn High Mass. Maybe they all used Google, books, etc. to fill in those gaps of personal experience?

3. For me, the "are you serious?" was the nice version. My first thought was that you were a troll who needed a prompt banning from the forum. Heaven knows I get enough of those on a regular basis. Glad to hear that's not the case here. I thought there was a chance you weren't a troll, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

4. You need to re-read my posts. I brought up the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" to refer to a VERY COMMON phenomenon among young, unmarried Trad men. When asked, "Have you tested out a vocation at the Seminary?" The conversation always goes something like this:

"No, I'm called to marriage."
"Really? Has God sent you a good woman to marry?"
"No, I'm almost 30, but no, still single. I know I'm called to marriage because I find myself attracted to women."

...How would you interpret that last statement? If being attracted to women means you're called to marriage, wouldn't that necessarily mean that all the priests and bishops are NOT attracted to women? And so what would that make them? AsɛҳuąƖ at best, but more likely ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. And that's obviously rubbish -- which is my point.

Many young men haven't stopped and thought that through. ESPECIALLY those young men who decide early on they want to get married -- and then wait 20+ years to find a suitable spouse, still single at 40, but never questioning their initial decision that "marriage is what God created me for".

You didn't answer my question though. You've been "Trad for 30 years" -- so you're 30 then? Why didn't you ever spend time at a Seminary? You could have learned about the Kiss of Peace as well as many other things.

Most young men (myself included) weren't exactly changing the world in their early 20's -- the world won't miss them for a year or 4 while they get a good foundation in the Faith and the spiritual life to set them up for life. I would worry about the discipline, maturity, and spiritual life of any man who hasn't been willing to give a year or two of his life to discerning a vocation, "just in case".

Those in the seminary didn't receive a voice from God that they should be a priest. Most of them go *to make sure they DON'T have a vocation to the priesthood.

Ok, I see the problem --

When a woman -- or man -- converts from a life of sin, they should have humility. They should accept whatever "looking down on them" they get as their just punishment for their sins.

For example, many young women are offended/upset that young Trad men want a virgin for a spouse. But in fact they shouldn't blame them at all (since it is a normal and healthy wish for a young man) and instead accept their rejection as part of the temporal punishment which they can offer up as penance for their past sins.

But instead, in today's Social Media age, every convert or person "with a past" is held up as a hero, glorified above the average Catholic, which is actually backwards. The rightful place of a convert is in a low place, doing penance. They should accept their position and any scorn (whether or not that scorn came from a good or bad intention).

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but for your part you could accept it in a good way, to your benefit.

You may be out of prison now, but that doesn't make you a saint. You might still have lots of pride which gets ruffled by words/attitudes of old-timers like myself. You should happily take the role of the student, and a student shouldn't normally be concerned that the teacher is giving them "enough respect". That's a modern attitude.

We all have room for improvement in the spiritual life, unless we are at the top of the Unitive Way.

You do make a good point, Matthew and thank you for your advice... and BTW, I'm 60 years old

4. You need to re-read my posts. I brought up the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" to refer to a VERY COMMON phenomenon among young, unmarried Trad men. When asked, "Have you tested out a vocation at the Seminary?" The conversation always goes something like this:

"No, I'm called to marriage."
"Really? Has God sent you a good woman to marry?"
"No, I'm almost 30, but no, still single. I know I'm called to marriage because I find myself attracted to women."

...How would you interpret that last statement? If being attracted to women means you're called to marriage, wouldn't that necessarily mean that all the priests and bishops are NOT attracted to women? And so what would that make them? AsɛҳuąƖ at best, but more likely ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

The thought that all priest are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because they are not attracted to women is just a strawman. Only someone of the world would think that, that all priests are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, and this is a Catholic forum, not a forum of the world. The thought that all priest are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because that is the only way a man could accomplish celibacy, is totally of the world, and it would not enter the mind of a real Catholic. That is why I call your comment a strawman. You created your own false argument to set yourself up to answered it yourself = strawman