Interview for Pre-Conciliar Catholics

[jesusalright4me]

I was curious to see if older folks who grew up with it perceived it with the bad attitude that it often is portrayed with.

I should clarify, I am curious to see if the experience they had with the Mass (and traditional Catholicism in general) was bad. For, if it is portrayed with a bad attitude, there are likely understandable reasons as to why this is the case. I also want to hear if it was positive, or maybe even inbetween! I am just genuinely curious. Someday, I would like to set up a personal project in which I formally interview and record post-conciliar Catholics.

 

[jesusalright4me]

That is just it, if the Mass is properly understood then the Mass should be revered no matter what form it is being offered in.

Agreed! One Mass, different expressions. Different rites, but One Holy, Catholic, and Apostalic Church!

I like the saying Latin for those who prefer it, English for those who prefer it, and reverence for all!

 

[JimG]

I can only speak for myself. I grew up going to Mass before Vatican II, which was announced around the time I was in 8th grade.

No idea what was going on at Mass? I can only say that was not true for my classmates and I. We were pretty well instructed on what the Mass was about. Most of us followed along with the readings in our missals.

Was it dark and gloomy? No. It was uplifting. Even as a ten year old I was moved by the beauty of our choir chanting the Gloria and the Credo in Latin.

Did the people understand the Real Presence? Yes. I would say that they understood it better then, than it is understood today.

Confession—I went with my family on Saturday afternoons, every week. It was a custom, and there were long confessional lines.

Yes, some priests did rush through the Latin, and that perturbed me a little because it made it harder to follow along in the missal.

I think that people in general read the bible outside of Mass about as much as they do now, which is to say, not a whole lot. There has been some improvement, but I think a lot of that is due to better translations now.

Seminary life and seminary education, I think, based on anecdotal evidence from past and present seminarians is vastly improved, although it did go through an atrocious period immediately following Vatican II.

I was excited when the Council was announced. I knew that ecumenical councils came around only about once a century, so it was historic. I was glad to have the Mass in English although displeased at the banality of the original ICEL translations. I was somewhat startled when we started singing Simon and Garfunkel songs before Mass, but all that craziness eventually passed; the translations now are better. The only remaining drawback is that several generations of Catholics were catechized in their Faith not at all.

 

[felsguy]

I gave them a read, rest assured I am not trying to make a war or anything. I am just genuinely curious. I love the Latin Mass but regularly attend a NO. It is my sincere hope that this thread does not become a ground for arguments.

It starts with my first encounter with the EF just this last year. I am a college student who was (obviously) raised in post-concilar times. I fell in love with the Eucharist during my late high school years. As I learned more about the faith, I heard about the reverence displayed towards the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the EF and was drawn to attend one, which I did last October. I was stunned. Since then, I have learned more and more about the traditional Mass, and as I learned more, I learned that, if properly understood,** it was not as bad as everyone** had always described it to me. I was curious to see if older folks who grew up with it perceived it with the bad attitude that it often is portrayed with.

I’ve been somewhat involved in various capacities in several fairly large US Midwest parishes over these years and I have not encountered folks (actually no one that I can recall) who badmouth the Mass as it was in those days. I think many of us who remember those days do now have a personal preference for the OF in terms of our own spiritual benefit but that isn’t saying that there is/was something “bad” about the traditional Mass.

I’m not sure who or how large a sample the “everyone” you mention is, but hopefully there will be some additional responses here to give you a broader perspective.

 

[JimG]

I like the OF Mass. But I find that it is easier to let my mind wander now than it was when I was following along in the Latin/English missal. (People seem not to follow along as much in ther English missalettes, because after all the Mass is in English.) As one guy told me during the transition, “hey, I can daydream as easily through English as I can through Latin.”

 

[JurisPrudens]

I keep reading about people praying their rosaries during Mass before Vatican II. I never prayed my rosary during Mass and I don’t recall ever seeing my parents, relatives or others praying the rosary during Mass. I suppose that their were some people that did, if they say so. I just don’t recall it a large number of people doing that. As far as remembering what the homilies were about at that time, I don’t recall that either. I guess some people’s memories must be much better than mine. I do recall a joke, however, that one priest told more than once. It was about a new convert named Dominic. The pastor asked if he could assist at being an usher. He agreed but asked when should he take up the collection. The pastor told him not to worry that he would give him a signal. The day of Dominic’s first duty as usher came and immediately after Mass the pastor realized that he forgot to tell Dominic when to take up the collection. The worried pastor was amazed when he saw that the collection was several times larger than usual, so he asked Dominic, “How did you know when to take up the collection?” Dominic replied, “Oh, I got your signal, Father. Every time you said, “Dominic go frisk 'em” I took up the collection.”

 

[ProVobis]

I like the OF Mass. But I find that it is easier to let my mind wander now than it was when I was following along in the Latin/English missal. (People seem not to follow along as much in ther English missalettes, because after all the Mass is in English.) As one guy told me during the transition, “hey, I can daydream as easily through English as I can through Latin.”

There’s nothing wrong in letting your mind wander. It’s a natural process that reflects the tensions and pleasures of the moment. One can follow the EF without thinking a single word. That’s part of its beauty.

 

[baliano]

I only attend the OF Mass and I have never in my region seen an invitation to greet one another at the start of Mass. And our schola bounces around from parish to parish so I get to see what is done in the ones we visit, so it must be a local thing.

As for the procession, this has been a traditional monastic practice for millennia for both Mass and the main hours of the Divine Office, and takes place as the introit is sung for Mass, or as the bell rings for the Divine Office.

Don’t shoot the messenger! I’m relating what occurs in our area as well as what we experienced at the churches we have visited on vacation; CO, KS, MO, NM, AZ, IA, OK, AR, CA, ME, NY and VA. Clearly this is more than something unique to our local parishes.

 

[OraLabora]

Don’t shoot the messenger! I’m relating what occurs in our area as well as what we experienced at the churches we have visited on vacation; CO, KS, MO, NM, AZ, IA, OK, AR, CA, ME, NY and VA. Clearly this is more than something unique to our local parishes.

I guess customs vary. Sometimes at the abbey, a busload of Americans tourists or pilgrims will come to Mass. In Canada the practice is to kneel at the consecration only until the anemnesis whereas I believe it is the practice in the US to kneel from the start of the EP through the doxology. So as most of us are standing, we hear the crashing of kneelers to the floor as the Americans in the nave get down on their knees well before we Canadians do

 

[otjm]

I was born well before Vatican 2; went to Catholic school in grade and high; and had every position an altar boy could have including Master of Ceremonies at Solemn High Masses - which were exceedingly less frequent than they appear to be now in some parishes which celebrate the EF.

Everybody has a personal experience of the Mass and Church from back then; and psychologists tell us that memory is not as stable as we all presume.

Vatican 2 concluded after I had entered college seminary, so you can draw your own conclusions as to my acceptance of the EF at that time - it was all we had, and the vast majority of the laity had no clue, let along grasp of liturgical history; it simply was not a matter of public discussion.

I can remember not really understanding why the Mass had to be in Latin - I was told the answer, but it was the equivalent of “That’s the way we do it”; and the same could be said for the rubrics. That is not that I hated Latin, although having taken it in high school for two years and in the seminary for two years, I certainly had no ability to converse in it. It was taught as a translated language, and mostly from Latin to English; we tended to slaughter it going the other direction. I also had 2 years of Homeric Greek as well as some koine - John’s Gospel. 's and started a gradual

As children, we had a missal as soon as my parents deemed us old enough to use it, and the great majority of my grade school classmates did not. Nor was the majority of the parish using one. You had to purchase them for yourself.

We had a pastor for over 16 years (starting when I was 4) who had a serious problem with alcohol; and having served the 6:30 a.m. weekday Mass often enough, I couldn’t tell if he had started drinking before that Mass, or was inebriated from the night before; but he clearly had an issue. That Mass tended to be fast; one of my younger brothers to this day says the priest could say Latin breathing in as well as out. Mass at about 15 minutes was the norm. On the other hand, he could pull out all the stops and say a Solemn High Mass - or for that matter, a High Mass (one per Sunday), with pomp and circumstance.

Things not understood - or perhaps even known - Mass attendance peaked in the mid 1950s and started a gradual reduction in attendance; there was no major fall-off when the liturgical changes were made; it went from a high of about 72% to a current 24%. There was a sociological study of what people were doing during Mass; and a majority were “present”, saying their rosary (which even today some find acceptable, never mind what 2,000 bishops thought about the matter) or saying private prayers, or reading out of a booklet, or simply being present. A minority (as in less than 50%, not a minimum) used a missal.

I find a lot of people, if asked, simply do not want to have the Mass in Latin as the only form available - some don’t want it at all, some might want to experience it occasionally. Most are not asked about the rubrics, and if asked, don’t know a whole lot about the rubrical changes (other than ad orientem, which most seem to not like).

 

[ProVobis]

… or say the Rosary

Well, it didn’t help to have the nuns wearing those large rosary beads as they sat and walked around their classes during Sunday Mass IMO. A lot of the stuff we ridicule today was actually taught back then. Or in the case of Latin, wasn’t taught.

 

[otjm]

Some other thoughts. Most people my age had exposure to the Baltimore Catechism. While the Catechism was excellent at getting one to memorize doctrine, but was short on what following Christ entailed, other than identifying what was sinful and “not doing that”. Sadly, all too many Catholics then saw “being Catholic” as attending Mass on Sunday, and not eating meat on Friday. The Catholic Workers Movement had its genesis in the 1930’s but was not widespread; groups such as Young Christian Students started in Belgium and France and again was not as widespread before V2. Whether it was these movements, or off shoots from them, certainly V2 brought a greater awareness that faith meant more than just obeying the 10 Commandments and Church disciplines.

Again, there really was not a lot of adult education and involvement outside of the Mass, and for a select few, Knights of Columbus or the Altar Society.

Contrary to JimG’s comment, bible studies took off after V2, which involved more than individual or family reading to the Bible. I don’t recal of ever hearing of one before 1965.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Hello! So, these days one hears much about the Church before Vatican II. Growing up, I was always taught that it was generally bad. I was told that people had no idea what was going on in the Mass. They felt as if Father Joe Smoe was participating in his own thing in Latin while everyone else observed/prayed their rosaries.

No we had missals from the time we made our First Communion and prayed the prayers the priest prayed in our pews in English. Some prayed their rosaries during Mass - I still do from time to time, depending on my spiritual mood and needs at the time.

I have heard that, when it came to private prayer, Catholics simply prayed their rosaries, and never read the Bible.

First off, praying your rosary is not the mechanical process of rattling off 50 Hail Marys. It is contemplation and meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary (15 back then). I am not sure that private prayer and reading the bible is comparing apples to apples. Private prayer is different for each person and can range from meditating on the mysteries of the rosary to soliloquy with Our Lord, as taught by St. Ignatius in his Spiritual Exercises. We did not, as a matter of course, read the bible as much as read discourses on the bible from the Doctors of the Church. It was believed that this was the best way to keep a Catholic perspective on Sacred Scripture and not fall into the trap of personal interpretation.

But I want to hear strait from the sources. So, pre-concilar (those born before Vatican II) Catholics, share your stories. What was it like growing up in the pre-concilar world? Was it dark and gloomy?

In Buffalo, NY, it was dark and gloomy from January to around the middle of March, but lives followed the rhythm of the Liturgical Seasons. For instance, Lent and Advent were “lived” experiences that directed our lives each day. But we were not gloomy because of anything having to do with Catholicism. On the contrary, we lived and loved our faith and were not embarrassed to wear it on our sleeve. On Saturdays, we would go to the movie matinee (10 cents) - usually a western or maybe sci-fi, and then go to Confession afterwards since it was right across the street (regardless of whether we had grave sins to confess or not).

Did people understand to an extent of what went on at the Mass?

I would venture to say, much more so then than now.

Did people really have an apathy for things like ad orientem, altar rails, and Latin?

We were quite use to it after several hundred years.

What was going to Mass like?

Like it is now in the EF.

Did people understand the Real Presence?

Pew research and statistics say that only 15% of Catholics today believe in the Real Presence. We understood it from our First Communion in 2nd grade - it was critical to our formation as Catholics. It was not something that we even thought to question.

Did more people take the Sacraments more seriously (e.g. more Confession, and less Communion when one was not worthy)?

Yes

Were Masses always celebrated with reverence, or were there cases of priests rushing through the Latin? Were there better priests?

Every priest was different and that remains the same today. There was nothing “magic” about that time that regulated the personality of each priest and how they offered Mass. Some were fast, some slow, some had long sermons, some short, some put you to sleep, some aroused fire in your spirit.

What were vocations to the priesthood/religious life like?

Many, many, many more.

Did you associate with Protestants/other faiths as much?

Never, from the perspective of prayer or joint services. Otherwise, just like today.

What did you think of the changes after Vatican II? Were they good, or bad?

I plead the 5th.

What was the transition period like?

It was VERY quick.

Feel free to answer some or all of these or to say anything else that you wish to say! God bless!

 

[zab]

It is interesting to read some saying that people received Confession much more before Vatican II than they do now. It has been the exact opposite from what it is today in our parish. I grew up in a small town in the Bible belt so there were not as many Catholics as Protestants that I grew up with. We used to go to Confession as a family once a month and it seemed like the only children there were from our family and my cousins and few older people. After making our First Confession, there didn’t seem to be much more instruction on how to go to Confession for growing children and teens. We knew we should go but nobody was really teaching us how to examine our conscience more deeply. When I got to high school I stopped going altogether. There is so much more encouragement today and help in forming our conscience than I recall there ever was when I was growing up. Now, we have been told many times by visiting priests and people who have travelled a lot that our parish is blessed.

 

[otjm]

Some other thoughts. Most people my age had exposure to the Baltimore Catechism. While the Catechism was excellent at getting one to memorize doctrine, it was short on what following Christ entailed, other than identifying what was sinful and “not doing that”. Sadly, all too many Catholics then saw “being Catholic” as attending Mass on Sunday, and not eating meat on Friday. The Catholic Workers Movement had its genesis in the 1930’s but was not widespread; groups such as Young Christian Students started in Belgium and France in the 1920’s and again was not as widespread before V2. Whether it was these movements, or off shoots from them, certainly V2 brought a greater awareness that faith meant more than just obeying the 10 Commandments and Church disciplines.

Again, there really was not a lot of adult education and involvement outside of the Mass, and for a select few, Knights of Columbus or the Altar Society.

Contrary to JimG’s comment, bible studies took off after V2, which involved more than individual or family reading to the Bible. I don’t recall of ever hearing of one before 1965.

As to what people thought of Latin, I will give an anecdote: my mother died 2 years ago at the age of 97. About 10 or 15 years before, I asked her what she thought of the changes of Vatican 2; the words were hardly out of my mouth when she said “Oh! The Mass in English!”. To put that in context, her high school graduating class was 5 people, in a rural area. And if evidence has any worth, out of about 17,300 parishes in the U.S., less than 500 have the EF (which includes those parishes which may have it once or twice a month, and at least one which has it once every other month). While there are people who would like to attend occasionally or on a regular basis, the vast majority of people appear to have no interest.

Were there better priests? There were more priests. Without some definition of what "better"means, the question is not one that can be answered meaningfully. I knew a number of great priests, and some who seriously needed work in anger management; some alcoholic, and others who might fit categories both great and not great.

No, I did not associate with Protestants much until I entered grad school.

What seems unknown is how “conservative” Vatican 2 could be seen - principally because much of it was based on the Fathers of the Church. We went back to the beginnings, which could certainly qualify as conservative, in spite of the fact that too many people seem to think that Trent was the sum total definition of the Church, and any changes from that are “liberal”. Or, as I have said, there are people out there who, if they could find a time machine and go back, would criticize the Apostles and the bishops after them for a number of centuries as saying the Mass “wrong”.

Having at one point actually read all of the documents of V2 at least once, and some of them several times, and truly believing what the Baltimore Catechism taught - that the Holy Spirit will keep the Church from error in Faith and Morals, I believe that V2 was awesome.

Implementation of it for a decade or two afterwards stunk. Some of that was due to unbridled enthusiasm, and too many bishops who were bureaucrats as opposed to shepherds. Some of that was due to some laity, professed religious, and ordained who were infected with a variation of Modernism and its permutations. And as an aside, all those ordained had taken the oath against Modernism, so the question is, “So, tell me, how well did that work out?”. And some of it was due to a snowball effect, gathering others into what amounted to as a lack of common sense - to which Voltaire had a droll observation proved all too true.

Interestingly, in Poland, with effective leadership, they avoided all the nonsense that went on in Europe and the US. The operating term being “effective leadership”.

 

[ProVobis]

It is interesting to read some saying that people received Confession much more before Vatican II than they do now. It has been the exact opposite from what it is today in our parish. I grew up in a small town in the Bible belt so there were not as many Catholics as Protestants that I grew up with. We used to go to Confession as a family once a month and it seemed like the only children there were from our family and my cousins and few older people. After making our First Confession, there didn’t seem to be much more instruction on how to go to Confession for growing children and teens. We knew we should go but nobody was really teaching us how to examine our conscience more deeply. When I got to high school I stopped going altogether. There is so much more encouragement today and help in forming our conscience than I recall there ever was when I was growing up. Now, we have been told many times by visiting priests and people who have travelled a lot that our parish is blessed.

Yes, there are places where confession lines are long. In other places such as my territorial parish, it is virtually non-existent.

 

[zab]

Speaking of priests, our little town had three priests when I was growing up. Today, the parish that I am a member has about 1200 families and only one priest. Like someone said, priests are all different. It was no different back then than it is today. But we know a lot more today then we did back then on certain things. Today, parents do not use as much corporal punishment except maybe for the little ones on occasion. And teachers are forbidden to. Babies and small children must be in car safety seats and all of us must wear seat belts. You cannot leave a child in the car to go inside a store for a few minutes. Today, parents can have their children taken away for things that my parents did. We would not want our parents and teachers of yesterday judged by the standards we have today. And the same should be true of our priests and bishops. The majority of priests today do not smoke as much as they used to.

 

[commenter]

No we had missals from the time we made our First Communion and prayed the prayers the priest prayed in our pews in English. Some prayed their rosaries during Mass - I still do from time to time, depending on my spiritual mood and needs at the time.

First off, praying your rosary is not the mechanical process of rattling off 50 Hail Marys. It is contemplation and meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary (15 back then). I am not sure that private prayer and reading the bible is comparing apples to apples. Private prayer is different for each person and can range from meditating on the mysteries of the rosary to soliloquy with Our Lord, as taught by St. Ignatius in his Spiritual Exercises. We did not, as a matter of course, read the bible as much as read discourses on the bible from the Doctors of the Church. It was believed that this was the best way to keep a Catholic perspective on Sacred Scripture and not fall into the trap of personal interpretation.

In Buffalo, NY, it was dark and gloomy from January to around the middle of March, but lives followed the rhythm of the Liturgical Seasons. For instance, Lent and Advent were “lived” experiences that directed our lives each day. But we were not gloomy because of anything having to do with Catholicism. On the contrary, we lived and loved our faith and were not embarrassed to wear it on our sleeve. On Saturdays, we would go to the movie matinee (10 cents) - usually a western or maybe sci-fi, and then go to Confession afterwards since it was right across the street (regardless of whether we had grave sins to confess or not).

Like it is now in the EF.

Pew research and statistics say that only 15% of Catholics today believe in the Real Presence. We understood it from our First Communion in 2nd grade - it was critical to our formation as Catholics. It was not something that we even thought to question.

Every priest was different and that remains the same today. There was nothing “magic” about that time that regulated the personality of each priest and how they offered Mass. Some were fast, some slow, some had long sermons, some short, some put you to sleep, some aroused fire in your spirit.
I plead the 5th.

Feel free to answer some or all of these or to say anything else that you wish to say! God bless!

A well written post. I can’t think of anything to add.

 

[baliano]

Well, it didn’t help to have the nuns wearing those large rosary beads as they sat and walked around their classes during Sunday Mass IMO. A lot of the stuff we ridicule today was actually taught back then. Or in the case of Latin, wasn’t taught.

Latin wasn’t taught where you went to school! Not only did we have years of formal instruction in Latin, we also memorized the Mass as well as recited many of the classic Latin literary works in class.

 

[felsguy]

, or say the Rosary, .

Well, it didn’t help to have the nuns wearing those large rosary beads as they sat and walked around their classes during Sunday Mass IMO. A lot of the stuff we ridicule today was actually taught back then. Or in the case of Latin, wasn’t taught.

I don’t know who the “we” are who today are ridiculing the stuff we were taught back then or where this idea comes from but it definitely does not include me and certainly not because I mentioned it as occurring back in from those days. I think we prayed the Rosary during Mass primarily because it was one of the few pious practices we taught and we were otherwise left pretty much to our own devices while “attending” Mass.

And Latin was taught to those who for some reason wanted to learn it in those days. After four years of it in high school, all seven of us seniors out of class of 180 boys (we all were planning to follow the same career) could readily translate “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres” and probably still can. But “quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea, quare me repulisti” and so on I memorized in the fourth grade and rattled it off weekly and some times daily for about the next ten years and never knew what it meant then and only have a vague idea now.