Questions about the changes of 1969

[TheLittleWay86]

I was born long after Vatican II, but I am very interested in learning about the changes that took place during the 1960’s and 1970’s in the Church. I have a great love for the Traditional Latin Mass and I attend regularly at an FFSP parish. I attend the Novus Ordo occasionally also, which I believe has it’s own beauty as well.

However, I’ve been wondering about 1969 when the Novus Ordo came into play… Were all priests required to celebrate the Novus Ordo and restricted from celebrating the TLM? Did individual priests, or perhaps bishops of diocese have the option to choose to celebrate one Mass or the other? Or did the Novus Ordo entirely and immediately replace the TLM? Was the TLM suppressed? If so, were indults regularly granted for the TLM? Surely many of the faithful and many priests were attached to the TLM? What was this like for the faithful who actually lived through this revolutionary era?

Please if anyone has any personal experience of this era and how things unfolded could you please share them? Also, if anyone knows where I could find historical information regarding this change in the Church could you please share the links?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have no personal experience, but I have read of various accounts.

Many people were extremely attached to the Tridentine Mass. They lamented its loss. Still others were unabashedly ecstatic to see it go in favor of the Novus Ordo. I imagine most people just went with it.

The Tridentine Mass (now known as the Extraordinary Form) was, for all intents and purposes, basically suppressed. It was never formally abrogated by decree; that is, it was never officially suppressed and theoretically remained “celebrateable.” However, this happened only in some very specific cases. Permission was granted to bishops to grant indults to celebrate the Tridentine Mass starting even in the reign of HH Paul VI. He gave bishops the right to decide if indults were to be granted, and this is commonly known as the “Agatha Christie Indult.” You can Google that.

During the reign of HH John Paul II, the manner or the degree to which indults were allowed to be granted by bishops was loosened a bit, and so, you saw a rise in the number of Tridentine Masses under his papacy. In 1988 the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was established by that Pope, which was charged with dealing with matters relating to the Tridentine Mass. It was, and still is, headed by a cardinal of the Church, currently His Eminence, William Cardinal Levada. This Commission, by its influence over time, further loosened (although only slightly) the norms for allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. For example, under the Commission’s guidance, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) was established in that same year, which has added valuable clout to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. They even have their own seminaries in Nebraska and France.

In 2007, HH Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio, a kind of formal papal document decreeing something (although not a dogmatic teaching), called Summorum Pontificum. This motu proprio removed from all priests in the Roman Church the permission of their bishop to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Effectively, before the document they had to ask and obey the answer, and after it was released they didn’t have to have permission from anyone. There are some basic requirements still to celebrate the Tridentine Mass under the guidelines of the motu proprio, such as knowing Latin and the rubrics of the mass, and in the case of public masses, there must be a “stable group” to attend them.

There were many and there continue to be many bishops who oppose the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. It is not useful to name specifics, but they do exist. These bishops, as was their papal-given right, had the authority before the motu proprio to deny requests by priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This caused more than a bit of division within the Church. By the grace of God, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio allows very unrestricted celebration of the Tridentine Mass, and so is helping very well to heal the division. The interesting thing is that the Tridentine Mass continues to not only be popular with old people who remember its widespread use before the 1960s, but an increasingly large number of young people. In fact, I’d say the bulk of “trads” aren’t older than 35.

I don’t know if the Tridentine Mass will ever become the only mass ever again. I suspect not. However, I do think that, over time, the Tridentine Mass will continue to inspire liturgical excellency in the common celebrations of the Ordinary Form of the mass, and perhaps in the future, perhaps 500 or 1,000 years from now, we will once again have one Roman unified Rite. I don’t know if that will happen, I don’t know if it should happen. Time will tell.

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, is truly the Pontifex Maximus, the greatest bridge-maker. He is the Pope of Christian Unity.

 

[Anthony_V]

I have no personal experience, but I have read of various accounts.

Many people were extremely attached to the Tridentine Mass. They lamented its loss. Still others were unabashedly ecstatic to see it go in favor of the Novus Ordo. I imagine most people just went with it.

The Tridentine Mass (now known as the Extraordinary Form) was, for all intents and purposes, basically suppressed. It was never formally abrogated by decree; that is, it was never officially suppressed and theoretically remained “celebrateable.” However, this happened only in some very specific cases. Permission was granted to bishops to grant indults to celebrate the Tridentine Mass starting even in the reign of HH Paul VI. He gave bishops the right to decide if indults were to be granted, and this is commonly known as the “Agatha Christie Indult.” You can Google that.

During the reign of HH John Paul II, the manner or the degree to which indults were allowed to be granted by bishops was loosened a bit, and so, you saw a rise in the number of Tridentine Masses under his papacy. In 1988 the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was established by that Pope, which was charged with dealing with matters relating to the Tridentine Mass. It was, and still is, headed by a cardinal of the Church, currently His Eminence, William Cardinal Levada. This Commission, by its influence over time, further loosened (although only slightly) the norms for allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. For example, under the Commission’s guidance, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) was established in that same year, which has added valuable clout to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. They even have their own seminaries in Nebraska and France.

In 2007, HH Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio, a kind of formal papal document decreeing something (although not a dogmatic teaching), called Summorum Pontificum. This motu proprio removed from all priests in the Roman Church the permission of their bishop to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Effectively, before the document they had to ask and obey the answer, and after it was released they didn’t have to have permission from anyone. There are some basic requirements still to celebrate the Tridentine Mass under the guidelines of the motu proprio, such as knowing Latin and the rubrics of the mass, and in the case of public masses, there must be a “stable group” to attend them.

There were many and there continue to be many bishops who oppose the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. It is not useful to name specifics, but they do exist. These bishops, as was their papal-given right, had the authority before the motu proprio to deny requests by priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This caused more than a bit of division within the Church. By the grace of God, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio allows very unrestricted celebration of the Tridentine Mass, and so is helping very well to heal the division. The interesting thing is that the Tridentine Mass continues to not only be popular with old people who remember its widespread use before the 1960s, but an increasingly large number of young people. In fact, I’d say the bulk of “trads” aren’t older than 35.

I don’t know if the Tridentine Mass will ever become the only mass ever again. I suspect not. However, I do think that, over time, the Tridentine Mass will continue to inspire liturgical excellency in the common celebrations of the Ordinary Form of the mass, and perhaps in the future, perhaps 500 or 1,000 years from now, we will once again have one Roman unified Rite. I don’t know if that will happen, I don’t know if it should happen. Time will tell.

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, is truly the Pontifex Maximus, the greatest bridge-maker. He is the Pope of Christian Unity.

The new generation of seminarians and religious are pressing extremely hard for the TLM (myself included) and more reverent OF liturgies. By the grace of God that I might be ordained a priest, I will certainly be pressing for said reparations. The OF mass was an excellent idea, and I believe it has drawn in more converts than otherwise, but the general catechesis has gone down the john.
However that’s not something a good dose of incense can’t handle. It’s like duct tape. or WD40.

 

[Mike30]

I have no personal experience, but I have read of various accounts.

Many people were extremely attached to the Tridentine Mass. They lamented its loss. Still others were unabashedly ecstatic to see it go in favor of the Novus Ordo. I imagine most people just went with it.

The Tridentine Mass (now known as the Extraordinary Form) was, for all intents and purposes, basically suppressed. It was never formally abrogated by decree; that is, it was never officially suppressed and theoretically remained “celebrateable.” However, this happened only in some very specific cases. Permission was granted to bishops to grant indults to celebrate the Tridentine Mass starting even in the reign of HH Paul VI. He gave bishops the right to decide if indults were to be granted, and this is commonly known as the “Agatha Christie Indult.” You can Google that.

During the reign of HH John Paul II, the manner or the degree to which indults were allowed to be granted by bishops was loosened a bit, and so, you saw a rise in the number of Tridentine Masses under his papacy. In 1988 the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was established by that Pope, which was charged with dealing with matters relating to the Tridentine Mass. It was, and still is, headed by a cardinal of the Church, currently His Eminence, William Cardinal Levada. This Commission, by its influence over time, further loosened (although only slightly) the norms for allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. For example, under the Commission’s guidance, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) was established in that same year, which has added valuable clout to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. They even have their own seminaries in Nebraska and France.

There were many and there continue to be many bishops who oppose the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. It is not useful to name specifics, but they do exist. These bishops, as was their papal-given right, had the authority before the motu proprio to deny requests by priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This caused more than a bit of division within the Church. By the grace of God, Pope Benedict’s motu proprio allows very unrestricted celebration of the Tridentine Mass, and so is helping very well to heal the division. The interesting thing is that the Tridentine Mass continues to not only be popular with old people who remember its widespread use before the 1960s, but an increasingly large number of young people. In fact, I’d say the bulk of “trads” aren’t older than 35.

I don’t know if the Tridentine Mass will ever become the only mass ever again. I suspect not. However, I do think that, over time, the Tridentine Mass will continue to inspire liturgical excellency in the common celebrations of the Ordinary Form of the mass, and perhaps in the future, perhaps 500 or 1,000 years from now, we will once again have one Roman unified Rite. I don’t know if that will happen, I don’t know if it should happen. Time will tell.

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, is truly the Pontifex Maximus, the greatest bridge-maker. He is the Pope of Christian Unity.

As one who lived and suffered through it, I can attest to the following. For all intents and purposes, at least in the US, it was suppressed. While you will never see that language used it was virtually impossible to find one anywhere. Just about the only place you could find one were with elderly Priests who had been excused from learning the New Mass or the Novus Ordo as it was called then. There were no Traditional orders or societies at that time. The SSPX was founded around 1970 as a legitimate ministry within the Church. It was not founded to maintain the old Mass, but to provide a conservative Seminary in the face of the rampant liberalism that was taking hold in most other Seminaries in Europe. Initially it was very small and was confined to Europe, not coming to the US until 1973.

The New Mass didn’t officially come on line until around 1970, and there was an odd hybrid Mass that was celebrated starting in 1965 or 66 if memory serves me correctly. That was a period of rampant experimentation and accounted for many of the abuses that people talk about today. This experimentation continued well up into the 90’s in some areas and probably still exists today in some more progressive areas. The Agatha Christie indult referred specifically to certain places in the UK, England and Wales specifically that were allowed to celebrate the Traditional Mass on an ocasional basis, not regularly.

In the US some Bishops, in fact most Bishops outlawed any public celebration as being devisive and not in the pastoral interest of the faithful. While still allowing the few older Priests to celebrate privately, public celebrations were extremely rare prior to the indult, virtually non existant, except in a very few Dioceses.

Even after the indult in 1984, it was still very hard to find a Traditional Mass as most Bishops, including many in major metropolitan areas continued to forbid the Rite completely or allow it in the most restrictive manner possible., for example, one celebration per month that could not be celebrated at a regular Church or Parish or on a Sunday among others.

It should be stated in all fairness that there were other Bishops who allowed Traditional Masses to be celebrated and encouraged them… I can think of two Dioceses in particular that did that and today both of those Dioceses have well established Churches and Parishes devoted to the Traditional Mass…

It was a dark and lonely time for the Traditional Mass and those attached to it and I truly believe it survived solely through the grace of The Holy Spirit acting through a few people and groups in spite of tremendous prejudice, hatred and opposition to it…

 

[ProVobis]

However, I’ve been wondering about 1969 when the Novus Ordo came into play… Were all priests required to celebrate the Novus Ordo and restricted from celebrating the TLM?

Pretty much. I heard from one priest that they were given three weeks to learn the New Mass or get out. But that’s just one priest.

Did individual priests, or perhaps bishops of diocese have the option to choose to celebrate one Mass or the other?

Almost all bishops mandated the '69 Missal. The one notable exception was Bishop Mayer of Campos who forbade the new Mass in his diocese.

Or did the Novus Ordo entirely and immediately replace the TLM? Was the TLM suppressed?

By the time the 69 Missal was promulgated, the 62 Missal had become very much changed, being vernacularized and having quite a few canons added. The 69 Missal actually consolidated all these canons into four EP.

If so, were indults regularly granted for the TLM?

The only notable indult was granted as a result of Agatha Christie et al who petitioned that the old Mass be retained. There were a few spot indults granted to older priests as well.

 

[malphono]

As one who lived and suffered through it, I can attest to the following. For all intents and purposes, at least in the US, it was suppressed. While you will never see that language used it was virtually impossible to find one anywhere. Just about the only place you could find one were with elderly Priests who had been excused from learning the New Mass or the Novus Ordo as it was called then. …

In the US some Bishops, in fact most Bishops outlawed any public celebration as being devisive and not in the pastoral interest of the faithful. While still allowing the few older Priests to celebrate privately, public celebrations were extremely rare prior to the indult, virtually non existant, except in a very few Dioceses.

Yes, that’s a good summary account.

Even after the indult in 1984, it was still very hard to find a Traditional Mass as most Bishops, including many in major metropolitan areas continued to forbid the Rite completely or allow it in the most restrictive manner possible., for example, one celebration per month that could not be celebrated at a regular Church or Parish or on a Sunday among others.

The same, unfortunately, continues to exist today, despite SP.

It should be stated in all fairness that there were other Bishops who allowed Traditional Masses to be celebrated and encouraged them… I can think of two Dioceses in particular that did that and today both of those Dioceses have well established Churches and Parishes devoted to the Traditional Mass…

Perhaps after SP. I’m not aware of any that encouraged the Usus Antiquior in the “indult” days.

It was a dark and lonely time for the Traditional Mass and those attached to it and I truly believe it survived solely through the grace of The Holy Spirit acting through a few people and groups in spite of tremendous prejudice, hatred and opposition to it…

Very dark and very lonely. Still is in most places.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Michael Davies’ Short History of the Roman Mass is a good read and from what I can remember answers your questions. He’s written several articles on similar subjects, so I may be mistaking it with another. At any rate, its very informative and worth reading. And free online! romancatholicism.org/davies-short.htm

 

[jonbhorton]

Michael Davies’ Short History of the Roman Mass is a good read and from what I can remember answers your questions. He’s written several articles on similar subjects, so I may be mistaking it with another. At any rate, its very informative and worth reading. And free online! romancatholicism.org/davies-short.htm

Great read. Thanks!

 

[TheLittleWay86]

Thanks everyone for all of the great information! I really appreciate it!

 

[MartyrForJesus]

As one who lived and suffered through it, I can attest to the following. For all intents and purposes, at least in the US, it was suppressed. While you will never see that language used it was virtually impossible to find one anywhere. Just about the only place you could find one were with elderly Priests who had been excused from learning the New Mass or the Novus Ordo as it was called then. There were no Traditional orders or societies at that time. The SSPX was founded around 1970 as a legitimate ministry within the Church. It was not founded to maintain the old Mass, but to provide a conservative Seminary in the face of the rampant liberalism that was taking hold in most other Seminaries in Europe. Initially it was very small and was confined to Europe, not coming to the US until 1973.

The New Mass didn’t officially come on line until around 1970, and there was an odd hybrid Mass that was celebrated starting in 1965 or 66 if memory serves me correctly. That was a period of rampant experimentation and accounted for many of the abuses that people talk about today. This experimentation continued well up into the 90’s in some areas and probably still exists today in some more progressive areas. The Agatha Christie indult referred specifically to certain places in the UK, England and Wales specifically that were allowed to celebrate the Traditional Mass on an ocasional basis, not regularly.

In the US some Bishops, in fact most Bishops outlawed any public celebration as being devisive and not in the pastoral interest of the faithful. While still allowing the few older Priests to celebrate privately, public celebrations were extremely rare prior to the indult, virtually non existant, except in a very few Dioceses.

Even after the indult in 1984, it was still very hard to find a Traditional Mass as most Bishops, including many in major metropolitan areas continued to forbid the Rite completely or allow it in the most restrictive manner possible., for example, one celebration per month that could not be celebrated at a regular Church or Parish or on a Sunday among others.

It should be stated in all fairness that there were other Bishops who allowed Traditional Masses to be celebrated and encouraged them… I can think of two Dioceses in particular that did that and today both of those Dioceses have well established Churches and Parishes devoted to the Traditional Mass…

It was a dark and lonely time for the Traditional Mass and those attached to it and I truly believe it survived solely through the grace of The Holy Spirit acting through a few people and groups in spite of tremendous prejudice, hatred and opposition to it…

No wonder so many tradition-loving Catholics flocked to the SSPX and FSSP. It’s quite upsetting learning how suppressed traditionalist movements were by the (majority?) of the Bishops during the past 50 years.

 

[Mike30]

No wonder so many tradition-loving Catholics flocked to the SSPX and FSSP. It’s quite upsetting learning how suppressed traditionalist movements were by the (majority?) of the Bishops during the past 50 years.

Yes it was and still is upsetting. All the more upsetting when you realize that a great many Bishops flat out ignored or disobeyed the Holy Fathers, Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is also somewhat upsetting to realize that many people today will cling to the statement made by the Holy Father that the rite was never abrogated and attempt to use that to infer that the Traditional Mass was really allowed after all and the Traditionalists are upset over nothing.

I think it also at least in part explains why Traditionalists are so protective of the Traditional Mass, maybe to the point of fanatacism. We had too fight tooth and nail for over fifty years for the Mass and becameot very protective of it and more than a little suspicious of the motives of the very ones who tried to stamp it out who are now saying it was always all right to celebrate it And by saying that, I do not mean the Holy Father, although I know someone will either pm me or post here accusing me of that…

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Yes it was and still is upsetting. All the more upsetting when you realize that a great many Bishops flat out ignored or disobeyed the Holy Fathers, Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is also somewhat upsetting to realize that many people today will cling to the statement made by the Holy Father that the rite was never abrogated and attempt to use that to infer that the Traditional Mass was really allowed after all and the Traditionalists are upset over nothing.

I think it also at least in part explains why Traditionalists are so protective of the Traditional Mass, maybe to the point of fanatacism. We had too fight tooth and nail for over fifty years for the Mass and becameot very protective of it and more than a little suspicious of the motives of the very ones who tried to stamp it out who are now saying it was always all right to celebrate it And by saying that, I do not mean the Holy Father, although I know someone will either pm me or post here accusing me of that…

Thanks for this insightful response. I agree completely with the bolded part.

God Bless.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

This may happen to many Catholics, or it could just happen to me, but I tended to judge what type of Pope it was in the past according to what happened in the Church under their reign. What I was surprised to find out is that Pope Blessed John Paul II for example was not anti-traditionalist, but rather many of the Bishops below him were. For example, when he asked (can’t remember the name of the document) the Bishops to be more merciful to traditionalist Catholics who wanted the Traditional Latin Mass in their diocese, many Bishops just practically ignored him.

 

[joe_bell]

Changes were mandatory, toleration for a time in a few places. I was born as the NO was put in place, but have read and heard from many people personally involved.
My now deceased spiritual father, a Discalced Carmelite, having gone along with the NO for a few years, was given the grace to stop saying it and went back to the TLM. He was relieved of duties(helping out at parishes, etc) and said Mass usually alone in the basement of the monastery, with sometimes a few being permitted for attendence, until that was stopped. He did say that he said the NO due to obedience. At the time, it would be such a strange notion for a Catholic to question something which they believed to have come lawfully from Rome.
When the Indult came out, he was able to be more public in saying Mass. In his later days, I was permitted as his server, but they would not permit anyone else to assist. He died over two years ago. Please remember Fr Joachim in your prayers.
Fr Mckenna, O.P. refused to say the NO, was later expelled from the Dominicans due to his adhering to the perennial faith, and with other priests started a chapel in Connecticut which has daily Mass to this day.
Fr Martin Stepanich, OFM refused to say Mass using the all-English canon, nevermind the NO, and was soon ostracised by his order. He said Mass in the Illinois area and is very low key these days, recently having celebrated his 70th anniversary of ordination.
Priests that stayed in the diocesan system and dragged their feet or tried to keep it as conservative as possible were branded. Some were passed over for assignments or put at places where the pastor would keep a short leash on them.
We don’t excuse it, but some of the good, faithful priests, having been beaten down for their love of the faith, went, perhaps for a time, to the bottle or some other escape.
Religous and priests who did not conform were sent for “therapy”, trying to find out why they had attachment for the "old ways, but more importantly to be programmed into adhering to the new social gospel message being proclaimed and to conform to it. Shock therapy was not out of line-for priests, brothers, sisters, etc.
More can be said about the burdens and crosses placed on the souls consecrated to God that knew something was not right and tried to stand up somehow to what was being permitted to happen by Rome.
As for the laity, well, while not as "educated’ as the typical priest, some tried to make a stand. What sticks in my mind is stories of families, whether led by the father or mother, leaving the Church during Mass when it became obviously apparent that what was being taught and foisted on them did not go with what was previously taught. Human respect was not on the mind of these brave souls. It was the love of Our Lord and His holy doctrine.
I wonder what I would have done if I had been around then. I shouldn’t, because that was not the time God had me live in. I do know that I must stand firm in the faith of our fathers if I have a hope of reaching Heaven, living it in season and out of season.

 

[robert7685]

A great read is the Ottaviani Intervention, which you can find here. fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

The Fish Eaters website is generally a good place to find the information you want.
Should you decide to go to the discussion fora they offer, bear in mind that the posters there run the spectrum of traditional Catholics, from those who attend both the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass, to SSPX supporters, to sedevacantists (though the topic of whether the chair is vacant or not is forbidden, just as it is here). So be sure to do your own homework on everything. Good luck.

 

[choliks]

Aside from the Mass, what were the other changes?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Aside from the Mass, what were the other changes?

Vestments, art, architecture, music. All those things went out the door for about forty years, and were in absolutely no line with Catholic tradition. Thankfully, we are now realizing that pride is not the answer, and are moving back to our glorious traditions.

I call this one the hamburger chasuble:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Um1kx-YZTGs/TpS8K1N8iII/AAAAAAAAAbw/_Ms0sCN3eUs/s1600/Ewww.jpg
His Excellency warrants respect, to be sure, but either he has no taste or he doesn’t like admonishing his sacristan.

I just, I don’t even know, and neither does he…


And finally the Pink Panther:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

To be fair and conciliatory and nice and politically correct, I should say that most parishes don’t do it that badly. But one is one too many, especially in the episcopate.

Laudetur Iesus Christus!, we are finally, finally getting back to our senses though, I daresay.

This is a photo of His Eminence, Cardinal Maida, formerly of Detroit, taken no more than four or five years ago:


I would go so far as to say that that cope is more gorgeous than some I have seen on popes.

I am seriously going to have vestments as my rosary intention one day.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I love the look of His Excellency Bishop Fellay’s vestments:





http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1451204,00.jpg

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld//files/2011/02/cr_mega_105_fellay.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0c88dcv4nUb8y/610x.jpg

I also love the look of His Eminence Cardinal Burke’s vestments in this picture!

 

[TrueLight]

Changes were mandatory, toleration for a time in a few places. I was born as the NO was put in place, but have read and heard from many people personally involved.
My now deceased spiritual father, a Discalced Carmelite, having gone along with the NO for a few years, was given the grace to stop saying it and went back to the TLM. He was relieved of duties(helping out at parishes, etc) and said Mass usually alone in the basement of the monastery, with sometimes a few being permitted for attendence, until that was stopped. He did say that he said the NO due to obedience. At the time, it would be such a strange notion for a Catholic to question something which they believed to have come lawfully from Rome.
When the Indult came out, he was able to be more public in saying Mass. In his later days, I was permitted as his server, but they would not permit anyone else to assist. He died over two years ago. Please remember Fr Joachim in your prayers.
Fr Mckenna, O.P. refused to say the NO, was later expelled from the Dominicans due to his adhering to the perennial faith, and with other priests started a chapel in Connecticut which has daily Mass to this day.
Fr Martin Stepanich, OFM refused to say Mass using the all-English canon, nevermind the NO, and was soon ostracised by his order. He said Mass in the Illinois area and is very low key these days, recently having celebrated his 70th anniversary of ordination.
Priests that stayed in the diocesan system and dragged their feet or tried to keep it as conservative as possible were branded. Some were passed over for assignments or put at places where the pastor would keep a short leash on them.
We don’t excuse it, but some of the good, faithful priests, having been beaten down for their love of the faith, went, perhaps for a time, to the bottle or some other escape.
Religous and priests who did not conform were sent for “therapy”, trying to find out why they had attachment for the "old ways, but more importantly to be programmed into adhering to the new social gospel message being proclaimed and to conform to it. Shock therapy was not out of line-for priests, brothers, sisters, etc.
More can be said about the burdens and crosses placed on the souls consecrated to God that knew something was not right and tried to stand up somehow to what was being permitted to happen by Rome.
As for the laity, well, while not as "educated’ as the typical priest, some tried to make a stand. What sticks in my mind is stories of families, whether led by the father or mother, leaving the Church during Mass when it became obviously apparent that what was being taught and foisted on them did not go with what was previously taught. Human respect was not on the mind of these brave souls. It was the love of Our Lord and His holy doctrine.
I wonder what I would have done if I had been around then. I shouldn’t, because that was not the time God had me live in. I do know that I must stand firm in the faith of our fathers if I have a hope of reaching Heaven, living it in season and out of season.

Wow. Thanks so much for sharing this.

I just want to say that there is still a stigma for those who only want to celebrate the EF.

You just don’t rise very far in the hierarchy when you insist on celebrating the EF. You are branded as a troublemaker.

So said a priest to me.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Wow. Thanks so much for sharing this.

I just want to say that there is still a stigma for those who only want to celebrate the EF.

You just don’t rise very far in the hierarchy when you insist on celebrating the EF. You are branded as a troublemaker.

So said a priest to me.

Well, His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke is very supportive of the EF.