Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

[jp72]

I was born in 1972 so I have never know what the church was like before Vatican II. I hear stories how strict the church was in those days, but I don’t see why this is an issue. If you thought the church is too strict then maybe it was not for you. Was this the reason for the change? Did they feel the old church was driving people away? Was it because America was becoming more liberal and the church was afraid of losinf its members?Looking at some of the changes that happen I feel I have been cheated that experience. I have never been to a latin mass in my life and now I feel I have missed out on something special. The are a few TLM in my diocese but they are pretty far for me to drive and attend. I am the kind of person who loves tradition and the church to day seems to lack that in some ways. I have been to many different churchs in my diocese and some are pretty conservative, but a lot seem to be a loose in their liturgy. There is no consistency between the parishes. Sorry, I seem to be venting. What I am trying to ask is how can I learn more about pre-Vactian II to better appreciate church past history? Also, how i can take some of those forgotten beliefs and incorporate them better in my life?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

One thing I would recommend is to read an older catechism, so that you can see how the faith was explained before the council. I think you’ll find that the faith was explained with very clear terminology that impressed the truth more precisely upon the mind.

Here’s a link to the Catechism of Pius X.

You may also want to watch a video of the old Mass. Here’s a link to a Solemn High Mass from Easter, 1942. It is narrated by Bishop Fulton Sheen.

 

[JustaServant]

I’d like to piggyback off of jp72’s initial post. I was born in 1961 and really have no proper memory of the pre-Vatican II Church. I have a few questions as will.

1. What were the instances of liturgical abuse in the pre-Vatican II Church?
2. Was the pre-Vatican II Church beset with just as much modernism and liberalism as we see today?
3. Do traditional Catholics today resemble the same Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church?

 

[brotherhrolf]

It was so much more than the Mass. It was a mindset. We had an identity as Roman Catholics. It was not at all unusual to see people riding a municipal bus to cross themselves when passing in front of a church or to wear ashes all through the day on Ash Wednesday.

If you read what actually came out of Vatican II and what happened afterward, then you realize so much was done “in the spirit of Vatican II” as interpreted largely by members of my generation. I have seen way too much in the last 45 years done “in the spirit of Vatican II” from liturgical dancing to tiger striped vestments on game days.

I haven’t seen it lately but EWTN used to run Archbishop Sheen’s excellent TV program that my family watched faithfully in glorious black and white way back when. Watch some of these.

There is also the Baltimore Catechism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism

This was the standard text used in Catholic schools. I can still recite many of the questions and answers to this day.

On the lighter side, there are a series of novels that came out in the 70s regarding growing up in the pre-Vatican II church that, as I recall, gave a human dimension to what it was like:

amazon.com/Patent-Leather-Really-Reflect-Classics/dp/0829421432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263665379&sr=1-1

 

[JustaServant]

It was so much more than the Mass. It was a mindset. We had an identity as Roman Catholics. It was not at all unusual to see people riding a municipal bus to cross themselves when passing in front of a church or to wear ashes all through the day on Ash Wednesday.

If you read what actually came out of Vatican II and what happened afterward, then you realize so much was done “in the spirit of Vatican II” as interpreted largely by members of my generation. I have seen way too much in the last 45 years done “in the spirit of Vatican II” from liturgical dancing to tiger striped vestments on game days.

I haven’t seen it lately but EWTN used to run Archbishop Sheen’s excellent TV program that my family watched faithfully in glorious black and white way back when. Watch some of these.

There is also the Baltimore Catechism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism

This was the standard text used in Catholic schools. I can still recite many of the questions and answers to this day.

On the lighter side, there are a series of novels that came out in the 70s regarding growing up in the pre-Vatican II church that, as I recall, gave a human dimension to what it was like:

amazon.com/Patent-Leather-Really-Reflect-Classics/dp/0829421432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263665379&sr=1-1

Do you know how many fundamentalist preachers TO THIS DAY preach against the dreaded black patent leather shoes? This is why they don’t dance at Bob Jones University.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I’d like to piggyback off of jp72’s initial post. I was born in 1961 and really have no proper memory of the pre-Vatican II Church. I have a few questions as will.

1. What were the instances of liturgical abuse in the pre-Vatican II Church?
2. Was the pre-Vatican II Church beset with just as much modernism and liberalism as we see today?
3. Do traditional Catholics today resemble the same Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church?

Just my opinion:

1. Although I personally never saw it, I was aware of it. “Speed” Masses. In and out of Mass in less than 15 minutes. Sadly, drunk priests.
2. Modernism and liberalism had very different meanings back then. Most of us in the pews were pretty conservative because society was pretty conservative. Modernism was an abstract theological concept.

3.I am a living traditional Catholic whose conscience was formed before Vatican II. I’m not dead yet. I still follow the way I was raised and have tried to impart something of that to my sons. I don’t think I am unique.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I’d like to piggyback off of jp72’s initial post. I was born in 1961 and really have no proper memory of the pre-Vatican II Church. I have a few questions as will.

1. What were the instances of liturgical abuse in the pre-Vatican II Church?

The old Mass does not lend itself to abuses. The Priest is facing the altar and every move he makes is dictated by the rubrics. I serve the old Mass. Even when you are in a large Church, you almost don’t realize anyone is behind you. You are up there with the Priest and the other servers. The Priest is doing what he does (again, every move is dictated by the rubrics), and the altar servers are doing what they do. Everything is precise and there is no room for liturgical novelties. The one “abuse” that the anti-Traditionalists mention is that some Priests said the prayers too fast. However, since the rubrics don’t dictate the speed at which the prayers are to be said, this is not an abuse. Just as with the Rosary some people say it faster than others, so too is it with the Old Mass.

1. Was the pre-Vatican II Church beset with just as much modernism and liberalism as we see today?

Modernism and Liberalism existed, by it was underground. Before the Council the Liberals and Modernists were persecuted by Rome. After the council everything changed: The “underground elements” rose to the surface and took control of the leadership positions. At that point, the Liberals and Modernists began to persecute the Catholics. Here’s a quote from Cardinal Congar explaining what the Church was like prior to the Council, and what happened afterwards.

Cardinal Congar: "[T]he Council put an end to the ineluctability of the system. What we understand by ‘system’ is a consistent set of codified teachings, of defined rules of behavior established by casuistry; a minutely detailed and very hierarchical organization; tight control and surveillance procedures; and rubrics that regulate worship. All of this was inherited from Scholasticism, the Counter-Reformation and the Catholic restoration of the 19th century and subjected to an efficient Roman regulations. **Pius XII reported to have said ‘I will be the last Pope to keep everything as it is now’. And, in fact, John XXIII … conveyed a totally different image of the Papacy. ** … The aggiornamento determined the end of what we call the unconditionality of the system…

Here’s another quote from Cardinal Congar:

**Cardinal Congar: **“The Council destroyed what I would call the unconditionality of the system. What I understand by “system” is a complete and very coherent body of ideas transmitted by the teaching of the Roman Universities, codified by Canon Law, protected by the strict and quite efficient vigilance of Pius XII, with reports, admonitions, and the submission of writings to the Roman censors, etc. in short, a whole ‘system’. With the Council, this was broken up. Tongues were loosened. The underground elements surfaced” (Animus Delendi I pgs 67-68).

As I mentioned above, when the underground elements surfaced and took over the Church, the real Catholics were pushed underground. That has been the case for the past 45 years, but is now beginning to change. Finally, the original “underground elements” are beginning to die off (deo gratias), and the real Catholics are again emerging. We see an example of this in the recent article discussing the state of the Church in France, which was posted here earlier this week

1. Do traditional Catholics today resemble the same Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church?

Yes. In belief, worship, and devotions, Traditional Catholics today resemble Catholics prior to Vatican II. The difference is probably that the Traditionalists are more educated in the faith than the average Catholic prior to the Council. This is due to the fact that, due to the current crisis, they have had to study much more in order to keep the faith, and no be led astray by the very subtle deceptions of modernism and Liberalism. In this we can see one example of how God bring good out of evil. Those who remain faithful to God, and who do their part, will receive abundant grace, “when sin abounds” (Romans 5:20)

 

[JustaServant]

Modernism and Liberalism existed, by it was underground. Before the Council the Liberals and Modernists were persecuted by Rome. After the council everything changed: The “underground elements” rose to the surface and took control of the leadership positions. At that point, the Liberals and Modernists began to persecute the Catholics. Here’s a quote from Cardinal Congar explaining what the Church was like prior to the Council, and what happened afterwards.

I want to focus on this answer first.
If the Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church were as educated as has been portrayed (by some), how did, what was underground, rise so quickly to the top?

 

[brotherhrolf]

I want to focus on this answer first.
If the Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church were as educated as has been portrayed (by some), how did, what was underground, rise so quickly to the top?

I have to think that it was part of the times. Society, in general, was in flux. And, it happened so rapidly. Most of us were so attuned to following the magesterium of HMC that it was inconceivable to question what was happening. There were almost weekly changes to the Mass as we transitioned from the TLM to the NO.

The brothers that taught me in high school wore black cassocks at the end of my sophomore year in 1967. When we came back after the summer, they were in white shirts, black slacks, and with a black tie. I sang in our choir and we sang Latin at the senior’s graduation Mass in 1968. When we came back after the summer, the guitars replaced the organ and chant. They wanted to make Mass “more relevant” to my generation. We actually had the NO in place at that time both at school and in my parish. The “official” date of the first Sunday of Advent in 1969 for the implementation of the NO is a real fiction.

I really believe that it was the baby boomer generation that picked up the ball and ran with it. As late as 1967 we still had the TLM.

 

[Penitant]

I want to focus on this answer first.
If the Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church were as educated as has been portrayed (by some), how did, what was underground, rise so quickly to the top?

I was not alive at the time, so this is merely speculation, but lets look at what happened in the structure of most parishes at the time.

Pastoral councils and “Pastoral associates” were created and started having significant authority. Those who wanted to change things (liturgically and theologically) would have naturally been drawn to those positions. Those who liked things as they were wouldn’t have seen the need.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[malphono]

I was not alive at the time, so this is merely speculation, but lets look at what happened in the structure of most parishes at the time.

Pastoral councils and “Pastoral associates” were created and started having significant authority.

Well yes, that’s sort of true. The “liturgy committee” and “pastoral council” and such things are but some of the “fruits” of the post-conciliar era that were picked long before they were even close to ripe. (Rather reminds me of today’s “industrial farming methods” where, while the stuff (produce, meat, whatever) looks good, it has no taste and can actually be tainted (think salmonella, e-coli, etc), but I digress.)

Those who wanted to change things (liturgically and theologically) would have naturally been drawn to those positions. Those who liked things as they were wouldn’t have seen the need.

Oh, they saw the need, but were thwarted at every juncture. The “children of Vatican II” were in control and even the idea of having people who wanted liturgical continuity involved in any committee or group was anathema to them. (I am personally familiar with several parishes and schools where such people were actually laughed out of the room.) The “reformers” were bent on accomplishing their agenda; they were not interested in even acknowledging the existence of the opposition.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I want to focus on this answer first.
If the Catholics of the pre-Vatican II Church were as educated as has been portrayed (by some), how did, what was underground, rise so quickly to the top?

It happend at a time of great chaos that began at Vatican II and picked up momentum after the Council closed. I would recommend reading the books The Rhine Flows into the Tiber for a historical account of what happened at the Council.

You might also be interesting in reading this letter sent to Paul VI by Fr. Depauw in August of 1967, in order to get an idea of the crisis in the Church following the Council.

 

[JustaServant]

I have to think that it was part of the times. Society, in general, was in flux. And, it happened so rapidly. Most of us were so attuned to following the magesterium of HMC that it was inconceivable to question what was happening. There were almost weekly changes to the Mass as we transitioned from the TLM to the NO.

The brothers that taught me in high school wore black cassocks at the end of my sophomore year in 1967. When we came back after the summer, they were in white shirts, black slacks, and with a black tie. I sang in our choir and we sang Latin at the senior’s graduation Mass in 1968. When we came back after the summer, the guitars replaced the organ and chant. They wanted to make Mass “more relevant” to my generation. We actually had the NO in place at that time both at school and in my parish. The “official” date of the first Sunday of Advent in 1969 for the implementation of the NO is a real fiction.

I really believe that it was the baby boomer generation that picked up the ball and ran with it. As late as 1967 we still had the TLM.

You see, that’s what confused me, that date. I NEVER remember a Latin Mass growing up. I must have been six or seven. I was very young at that time, my sister filled in some blanks for me.
My parents were dead set against the changes in the Church at that time in our local parish. For a long time, they simply stopped going to Mass. We kids still went (it was within walking distance). This continued until the mid 70s when they started going to a small chapel in the south side of Pittsburgh started by a group of working class Catholics who simply wanted a Latin Mass. We were blessed with a wonderful old retired priest, Fr. Leo Fredricks. He sat at our table more than a few times.

 

[edwest2]

I was there, and first of all, let’s not use terms like liberal and conservative.

The Mass was in Latin. The priest faced the altar. The key difference is that we lived out our beliefs daily. We restrained ourselves. At social gatherings, wives would warn their husbands to not “talk like that around the kids.” There was a dress code in Catholic school. Girls’ skirts had to cover their knees. I was aware of God and my obligations at all times. Boys were discouraged from fighting. You didn’t give anyone an obscene gesture.

People understood the meaning of appropriate guilt which was linked to being responsible for their actions. There was also appropriate shame and modesty was taught to both sexes.

Dating did not mean sex. There was dating, going steady, courtship, engagement, and if all parties were still agreeable, marriage. Young men and women included each other’s parents in their marriages. There were ties of love between aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives on both sides.

Vatican II did not cause any of that to change but small committed groups both in the Church and outside of it wanted to turn it in their direction.

When the American Civil Liberties Union woke up one day in the 1990s and declared this religious display and that Nativity scene violated the Constitution, their agenda was finally completed. Get God out of the daily lives of the people and substitute Him with the flesh.

Once again, Vatican II caused none of that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[snowpea]

I am interested too and was born post Vatican2 as well it seems.

Can someone please post a link or an explanation regarding WHAT exactly WAS Vatican2 and why it happened? I can guess the Latin Mass was left behind but why? and what else occurred and changed?

I would appreciate it - I always wanted to ask this question. thank you

 

[CradleCath]

The old Mass does not lend itself to abuses. The Priest is facing the altar and every move he makes is dictated by the rubrics. I serve the old Mass. Even when you are in a large Church, you almost don’t realize anyone is behind you. You are up there with the Priest and the other servers. The Priest is doing what he does (again, every move is dictated by the rubrics), and the altar servers are doing what they do. Everything is precise and there is no room for liturgical novelties. The one “abuse” that the anti-Traditionalists mention is that some Priests said the prayers too fast. However, since the rubrics don’t dictate the speed at which the prayers are to be said, this is not an abuse. Just as with the Rosary some people say it faster than others, so too is it with the Old Mass.

Modernism and Liberalism existed, by it was underground. Before the Council the Liberals and Modernists were persecuted by Rome. After the council everything changed: The “underground elements” rose to the surface and took control of the leadership positions. At that point, the Liberals and Modernists began to persecute the Catholics. Here’s a quote from Cardinal Congar explaining what the Church was like prior to the Council, and what happened afterwards.

Cardinal Congar: "[T]he Council put an end to the ineluctability of the system. What we understand by ‘system’ is a consistent set of codified teachings, of defined rules of behavior established by casuistry; a minutely detailed and very hierarchical organization; tight control and surveillance procedures; and rubrics that regulate worship. All of this was inherited from Scholasticism, the Counter-Reformation and the Catholic restoration of the 19th century and subjected to an efficient Roman regulations. **Pius XII reported to have said ‘I will be the last Pope to keep everything as it is now’. And, in fact, John XXIII … conveyed a totally different image of the Papacy. ** … The aggiornamento determined the end of what we call the unconditionality of the system…

Here’s another quote from Cardinal Congar:

**Cardinal Congar: **“The Council destroyed what I would call the unconditionality of the system. What I understand by “system” is a complete and very coherent body of ideas transmitted by the teaching of the Roman Universities, codified by Canon Law, protected by the strict and quite efficient vigilance of Pius XII, with reports, admonitions, and the submission of writings to the Roman censors, etc. in short, a whole ‘system’. With the Council, this was broken up. Tongues were loosened. The underground elements surfaced” (Animus Delendi I pgs 67-68).

As I mentioned above, when the underground elements surfaced and took over the Church, the real Catholics were pushed underground. That has been the case for the past 45 years, but is now beginning to change. Finally, the original “underground elements” are beginning to die off (deo gratias), and the real Catholics are again emerging. We see an example of this in the recent article discussing the state of the Church in France, which was posted here earlier this week

Yes. In belief, worship, and devotions, Traditional Catholics today resemble Catholics prior to Vatican II. The difference is probably that the Traditionalists are more educated in the faith than the average Catholic prior to the Council. This is due to the fact that, due to the current crisis, they have had to study much more in order to keep the faith, and no be led astray by the very subtle deceptions of modernism and Liberalism. In this we can see one example of how God bring good out of evil. Those who remain faithful to God, and who do their part, will receive abundant grace, “when sin abounds” (Romans 5:20)

Can you tell me if the Cardinal Congar you are quoting is Yves Congar. Either that or just provide a link to these passages. Thanks.

 

[KC91]

The key to understanding the pre-Vatican II Church is the Papacy of Pope Pius XII as PXII’s reign was when the pre-Vatican II Church was at it’s height. Then the Church was strong of her own truth, proud of her history and tradition, monolithic like McDonalds and Starbucks because just as McDonalds and Starbucks served the same food and coffe everywhere the Church served the same Latin mass eveywhere, faithful as 80% of all Catholics attended mass and vocations soared and one of the most powerful forces on earth as at that time although still at 500 million, Catholics made up 25% of the population of the world and the Church has concordats with dozens of countries all over the world many of whom recognized Catholicism as the state religion.

Well although Benedict XVI is doing a good job trying to clear up the mess from the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ (I accept the Council’s documents and the Council itself, not the spirit) compare that pre-Vatican II Church to today’s Church! I would love to have been a Catholic at that time, that was truly the ‘Golden Age’ of Catholicism.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Can you tell me if the Cardinal Congar you are quoting is Yves Congar. Either that or just provide a link to these passages. Thanks.

Yes, it is Yves Congar. I copied the two quotes out of a book, so I don’t have a link for you. However, if you want to get a deeper understanding of what is happening to the Church I would recommend reading the book. The books is about 85% quotations from the movers and shakers of Vatican II. The book is Animus Delindi I (Desire to destroy), which documents their stated desire to destroy the Church. They believe that in destroying the Church, it will result in a resurrection of the Church. Therefore, they believe it is their job to destroy it - and that is what they are doing. The book is troubling to read, but very informative.

 

[malphono]

The key to understanding the pre-Vatican II Church is the Papacy of Pope Pius XII as PXII’s reign was when the pre-Vatican II Church was at it’s height. Then the Church was strong of her own truth, proud of her history and tradition, monolithic like McDonalds and Starbucks because just as McDonalds and Starbucks served the same food and coffe everywhere the Church served the same Latin mass eveywhere, faithful as 80% of all Catholics attended mass and vocations soared …

All that is true, but I can’t help but think about what I bolded above. I have always found it fascinating that the “movers and shakers” of the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” (even typing that puts a bad taste in my mouth) were the vocations from the Pius XII years. Priests who were trained the “old way” and who couldn’t wait to throw out (or, in many cases, burn) their vestments and don burlap and felt and polyester instead. Priests who tripped over themselves to put up a table rather than use a fixed altar. Priests who had been taught to read chant and who started a-strummin’ guitars à la Joan Baez as soon as they could. Priests who made promises of celibacy (or, in the case of religious vows of chastity), who ran for the nearest door to get married. And then there were the religious sisters (true nuns, in the canonical sense, seem to have weathered this better) who were formed the “old way” yet were hot-to-trot to change their constitutions to eliminate any vestige of a habit. Religious sisters who joined their respective communities knowing the particular charism of the community (teachers, nurses, etc) who took an immediate disdain to that and wanted to be social workers. Religious sisters who took vows of chastity and yet ran for the nearest door to get married.

And it is interesting to note that the greatest opposition to the “reform of the reform” comes from those very same “fugitives from the '60s” and their students and heirs. Makes one wonder if the Pius XII years were all that they are often cracked up to be.

 

[CradleCath]

**The key to understanding the pre-Vatican II Church is the Papacy of Pope Pius XII as PXII’s reign was when the pre-Vatican II Church was at it’s height. Then the Church was strong of her own truth, proud of her history and tradition, **monolithic like McDonalds and Starbucks because just as McDonalds and Starbucks served the same food and coffe everywhere the Church served the same Latin mass eveywhere, faithful as 80% of all Catholics attended mass and vocations soared and one of the most powerful forces on earth as at that time although still at 500 million, Catholics made up 25% of the population of the world and the Church has concordats with dozens of countries all over the world many of whom recognized Catholicism as the state religion.

Well although Benedict XVI is doing a good job trying to clear up the mess from the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ (I accept the Council’s documents and the Council itself, not the spirit) compare that pre-Vatican II Church to today’s Church! I would love to have been a Catholic at that time, that was truly the ‘Golden Age’ of Catholicism.

I agree! I was raised in the pre-Vatican II Church. Mass attendance was 80% in those golden years. We had our invaluable nuns teaching schools & the fact that they would work for a pittance & the Love of God, enabled Catholic parents to be able to afford to send their children. The rectories were full.

I’ve studied the reasons given for calling a council when Pope John XXIII called Vatican II & I truly cannot come up with a GOOD reason. The first Nicean Council was called because of the Arian heresy. Macedonius & Nestorius both taught heresy & that called for 2 more councils, etc. The council of Trent was called to clear up the confusion of the various teachings that were rampant after Luther’s defection, to reform some of the abuses that were happening in the Church at the time…selling of indulgences, the fact that Bishops were not living in the areas they “ruled”, etc. It also called for our priests to receive outstanding schooling. Thus began the best years we’ve known.

Sometime in the 1950s, liberal rumbles began to be heard from the west European “theologians”. We, the laity, had no idea that there was unrest among the clergy in Europe, but it reached the ears of the Pope. Though warned by Archbishops & Cardinals alike that calling a council during these good years was “tempting God”, he did so anyway. Rather than re-open Vatican I, John XXIII shocked the world and launched the slippery slope the Church has been on ever since when he announced on January 25, 1959 at St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls that he would convene the Second Vatican Council. It is said that he regretted his decision, but I have no proof that that is true. I DO know that he hadn’t a clue that the above mentioned theologians would hi-jack the council & use it for their own liberal agenda.