A few thoughts on the History of Traditional Catholicism

[JustaServant]

I think people on both sides, liberals and trads, are missing the point when it comes to Vatican 2. It is not 1962, it is 2012. Vatican 2 is a quarter century old now and needs to be put into a historical perspective. Most of the Catholics affected by the “spirit” Vatican 2 have or will soon no longer be with us.
My parents and many others in thier generation dissented from that “spirit” back in the 70s. The “spirit of V2” was not Vatican 2. It was told to them that it was by opportunistic liberals in the Church at that time. These working class Catholics who put in 12 hour days in the steel mills of Pittsburgh didn’t call themselves “trads” back then, they were just Catholic, period.
All they wanted was a Latin Mass and were told it was “banned” or “illegal”. And if you went to a Latin Mass given by a retired priest validly ordained in the Catholic Church they were told they were no longer Catholic. To this day you can pull up online a letter given by the diocease that refered to thier little chapal as “neither a chapal nor a Church”, words that would hardly be used against “Protestant brethren”.
It’s very difficult for people today to understand the motives and the raw feelings of Catholics of that generation because they are no longer with us and today’s “trads” are looking at the situation today as if it were the same situation 40 years ago. It wasn’t.
These people (the first to be affected by the changes of V2) were not theologians or experts at Canon law, they certainly weren’t revolutionaries. They were marginalized, and made pariahs by the very clergy they expected to shepherd them.
Time went on and the wolves came in. The old generation was dying off and what replaced these “early tradtionalists” my parents and many others would have been sickened by. The rhetoric became more polarizing, and like a divorced couple, love turns into bitterness and outright hate.
And here we are, 40 years later. The SSPX will most certainly be reconciled with Rome, because it is now part of history and the healing process has to begin.
The Catholic Church does not stand transfixed in time.
IMO, the liberals AND the radicals lost the argument.
The real winners will be that first generation who saw the dangers of the “spirit” of Vatican 2 (which was not in fact what Vatican 2 advocated) and alerted us to them.

I guess I stand in the middle, I have respect and sympathy for traditional Catholics, but some of thier spokespeople make me cringe.
Rant off.

 

[TrueLight]

This is not a rant. This is an awesome post.

I always like to hear stories of how things were back in the day.

Much respect to those who came before us and paved the way.

 

[Genesis315]

Good post. For most people it wasn’t about the subtle doctrinal controversies at the forefront today, or even the text or language of the Mass. For many of the old folks I’ve talked to about this, it was the destruction of churches that people sacrificed so much to build and the draconian way in which the changes were implemented that did it. It was the literal tossing of sacred things in the trash, the berating of people who clung to traditional forms of piety, etc. while secular songs and whatnot were introduced and non-Catholics were fawned over. It’s really sad.

My local parish is a microcosm for the Church I think. It was totally stripped bare, stained glass was plastered over and paintings on walls whitewashed. In recent years however, parishioners have come together to restore much of what was destroyed. The stain glass has been uncovered, the paintings recreated, and statues brought back. The only problem is that we have much less money to restore than the destroyers had to destroy. I think the Church at large is beginning to see the Holy Spirit effect a similar restoration, bit by bit, but rebuilding will definitely be tougher than the destruction.

 

[TrueLight]

What was the reason that was given for the destruction of architecture, and removal of statues and rails?

 

[YoungTradCath]

What was the reason that was given for the destruction of architecture, and removal of statues and rails?

Likely the deformed child of the times along with the “OMGEE Vatican II we can do whatever we want!” common feeling.

 

[Genesis315]

What was the reason that was given for the destruction of architecture, and removal of statues and rails?

There was this movement in architecture which accompanied the liturgical reform movement which sought a “singularity of image.” The altar and the consecration on it were to be the sole focus and everything else was mostly seen as a distraction (this was also the original reason for the priest facing the people). These trends were then also extrapolated as a falsely irenic means to seek common ground with the “separated brethren.”

The altar rails were taken down to emphasize the oneness of the flock with the priest, sacrificing as one body, but this was also distorted to remove the distinction between priest and lay people.

You can read about one the early pioneers of this here (note, this is well before Vatican II):
usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/sacred%20heart%20parish.html

Scroll down a little to the part about the renovation. The whole article is a good, short history lesson in this movement. The sidebar lists the chapters, “Introduction” being the first. For what its worth, this article is pro- the changes.

 

[Rich_C]

This is not a rant. This is an awesome post.

I always like to hear stories of how things were back in the day.

Much respect to those who came before us and paved the way.

I do, too. If you want to hear stories that will inspire you and tug your heartstrings, read some of Tim’s posts on Fish Eaters.

 

[CatholicLife]

But why did they have to change the liturgy ? The traditions ? Why aren’t we like the Orthodox , who have been able to maintain beautiful chruches and reverent liturgies ?

 

[JustaServant]

In those days whenever someone would ask “Why?”, and the answers were generally along the lines of “that’s what the people want”, the problem was the changes actually never being requested by any of “the people” nor authorized by V2.

Here is a quote from the late brotherhrolf, who used to contribute quite a bit on this forum:

What I saw…
I saw the brothers who taught me cease wearing their cassocks over the course of the summer of 1967. I sang in the choir for the senior’s graduation in 1968 - traditional Catholic hymns. Our graduation in 1969 had three of my classmates on guitar. We sang “Sons of God”; “Bridge over Troubled Waters”; “Sounds of Silence”; “And They’ll Know We are Christians”.
There was no survey taken in 1967 about our feelings. I, for one, was perfectly happy with the Latin. I hated the guitars and the sappy Muppet music then and I hate them now and everything which has followed since (e.g. liturgical dancers and, yes, I have had the extreme misfortune of having seen them)
I saw my parents and neighbors (the WWII generation) reduced to attending the then new Saturday afternoon vigil Mass so that they didn’t have to endure the a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ folks. I drive (and have driven) 25 miles one way since 1983 to attend a reverent cathedral parish. I have prayed for 40 years that the pendulum would swing the other way.
That’s what we did 40+ years ago. We prayed. Our Holy Father has answered our prayers- except in my diocese. But that’s OK.
I don’t want to call myself a “traditional Catholic”. I am Catholic.

 

[JustaServant]

There is no history of the effects of the “Spirit” of Vatican 2 had on the laity of the time that I know of, except for personal stories. Sadly, many of these folks have died off. But a loose history can be put together by searching news archives (like Google). Even though the stories are slanted, one can still glean from them a picture of those days. Priests who resisted, groups that were formed for the purpose of retaining tradition.
Many of the “trads” today are attracted to conspiracy theories and, take it from someone who spent a few years them, Protestand fundamentalist. The Jack Chick variety.
That is light years away from what the original traditional Catholics wanted or desired.

 

[Rich_C]

I suspect part of the difference between those who clung to the traditional Mass during the changes and the trads of today is due to changes in the Church since then.

Then, Catholics who wanted the old Mass probably thought the rest of the Church would be okay with the new missal, they just didn’t want it. Also they were raised in times when obedience was big.

Today’s trads have seen the Church become a shell of Her former self and blame the OF so they want to go out and change the rest of the Church because they believe it is self-destructing (most believe in the Petrine Promse and think that in the worst case the Holy Father and handful will be left). Also, young trads probably were not raised in the same culture of obedience as our predecessors.

Just my 2 cents.