Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

[CradleCath]

Vatican II had nothing to do with the decline as the reasons behind the Catholic Exodus of priests and nuns is outlined in this TIME magazine cover story from 1970.

time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19700223,00.html

Ed, what you are talking about here is society in general & the OP. in this thread asked for information because he/she is "Wanting to Understand The Pre-Vatican II CHURCH. Do you honestly believe that, before the council, our priests would have just let all of the immorality that you have mentioned…go? Do you not believe that we would have heard about the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage, the horrible addiction to porn that becomes an illness that wrecks marriages. My pre-Vatican II pastor would have been addressing all of these things from the pulpit & remembering him…the pulpit would probably have shook from a pounding fist.

No, the council wanted a kumbaya/love will conquer all/“the answer, my friend is blowin’ in the wind” & if we all join together & hold hands eveything will be fine" type of Church & they got it. The council effectively censured our Bishops, who then silenced our priests, not Rome.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, what you are talking about here is society in general & the OP. in this thread asked for information because he/she is "Wanting to Understand The Pre-Vatican II CHURCH. Do you honestly believe that, before the council, our priests would have just let all of the immorality that you have mentioned…go? Do you not believe that we would have heard about the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage, the horrible addiction to porn that becomes an illness that wrecks marriages. My pre-Vatican II pastor would have been addressing all of these things from the pulpit & remembering him…the pulpit would probably have shook from a pounding fist.

No, the council wanted a kumbaya/love will conquer all/“the answer, my friend is blowin’ in the wind” & if we all join together & hold hands eveything will be fine" type of Church & they got it. The council effectively censured our Bishops, who then silenced our priests, not Rome.

Did you see the link I posted about dissident priests who signed a protest against Humanae Vitae? Who was silenced? Are you turning this into a management problem again?

Look. No one asked for Adult Bookstores. Graphic porn was not legalized by Catholics. Topless bars were not legalized by Catholics and the Catholic Church was not silenced about The Pill, that’s why I keep bringing up Humanae Vitae in 1968.

Until people understand that outside forces with no conscience put all of this out there after making it Legal, you can’t blame it on Vatican II.

Corruption and vice was being marketed to the average person, and, unfortunately, a few of us went in. A few of us became porn addicts, and after a while, younger people thought, “Hey? What’s the big deal?” It’s there, it’s legal, it must be OK.

Until Catholics realize that dysfunctional sexuality was marketed to them by forces outside of the Church they will not understand what happened. Yes, a few dissident priests who ‘thought’ they were doing the right thing in 1968 gave the outsiders an excuse to point to, but those priests did not see what was coming in the 1970s. The same for the average Catholic in 1968.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CradleCath]

did you see the link i posted about dissident priests who signed a protest against humanae vitae? Who was silenced? Are you turning this into a management problem again?

Look. No one asked for adult bookstores. Graphic porn was not legalized by catholics. Topless bars were not legalized by catholics and the catholic church was not silenced about the pill, that’s why i keep bringing up humanae vitae in 1968.

well ed, it’s been nice “chatting” with you…but, we sure aren’t getting anywhere are we. You go on believing that some outside force brought us to such a low point & i’ll go on believing that noone on the outside could turn our church into one who is “led” by bishops who tolerated sexual abuse of young boys.

One thing we have in common is the fact that neither of us like the place we’re in right now. I do believe that God & pope benedict are leading us out of this darkness & we’ll soon be seeing the beams of light pouring through our stained glass windows once

again.]

 

[brotherhrolf]

I know that society exerted a lot of pressure on HMC. In that sense, I agree with Cradle Cath. On the other hand Cradle Cath is absolutely correct about the abuse scandal. One of the bishops in my diocese was “convicted” of the abuse long after he was dead. He had a high school named in his name. Said high school was renamed after St. Michael the Archangel.

The bottom line is that the liberals took “the spirit of Vatican II” and ran with it.

 

[reggieM]

The bottom line is that the liberals took “the spirit of Vatican II” and ran with it.

I fully agree with that as the bottom line. The “spirit” of VII was just whatever wind was blowing that day or week. It was not jusified by the documents (or by reading in light of the tradition of the Church).

Then the next questions could be, “Why did they want to run so far off?”

But that leads to a quagmire of analysis on dispositions, intentions, motives, awareness, psychological states, influences … It’s very hard to figure that out.

The fact is, they took it too far. Society pushed them, they pushed themselves, the Devil pushed them, maybe even some faulty education before the Council pushed them … who knows? It’s impossible draw a clean and simple answer for all of the people involved.

For myself, I believe that God allowed it for a good reason. “For those who love God, all things work for the best” – as St. Paul teaches. How could a disaster like this work for the best? The game isn’t over yet so we don’t know the final score on this era. Our home team has slipped behind in the score – but there’s still time on the clock. Or for another analogy: The last chapter of the post-VII era story hasn’t been written yet either. We see some clues … a knife, a footprint, an overheard conversation … but it’s not yet enough to solve the mystery.

When does the post-VII era end, historically? Certainly, with a new Ecumenical Council it would. But failing that – perhaps when the last of the Conciliar generation is gone. Or most likely, when Vatican II is no longer seen as controversial and it can be judged objectively (as other difficult Councils of the past are now).

Pope Benedict was a major player at Vatican II and he feels its his mission to correct the Spirit of Vatican II errors and have the documents of the Council interpreted correctly. He’s one of the last men on earth who could do that because he was there at the Council and actually wrote some of the texts.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Differences aside, you have all said some enlightening things. I have very much enjoyed reading this thread up to this point. Your cumulative knowledge and insight amazes me. I come to the forum to learn. Thank you all.

 

[edwest2]

I fully agree with that as the bottom line. The “spirit” of VII was just whatever wind was blowing that day or week. It was not jusified by the documents (or by reading in light of the tradition of the Church).

Then the next questions could be, “Why did they want to run so far off?”

But that leads to a quagmire of analysis on dispositions, intentions, motives, awareness, psychological states, influences … It’s very hard to figure that out.

The fact is, they took it too far. Society pushed them, they pushed themselves, the Devil pushed them, maybe even some faulty education before the Council pushed them … who knows? It’s impossible draw a clean and simple answer for all of the people involved.

For myself, I believe that God allowed it for a good reason. “For those who love God, all things work for the best” – as St. Paul teaches. How could a disaster like this work for the best? The game isn’t over yet so we don’t know the final score on this era. Our home team has slipped behind in the score – but there’s still time on the clock. Or for another analogy: The last chapter of the post-VII era story hasn’t been written yet either. We see some clues … a knife, a footprint, an overheard conversation … but it’s not yet enough to solve the mystery.

When does the post-VII era end, historically? Certainly, with a new Ecumenical Council it would. But failing that – perhaps when the last of the Conciliar generation is gone. Or most likely, when Vatican II is no longer seen as controversial and it can be judged objectively (as other difficult Councils of the past are now).

Pope Benedict was a major player at Vatican II and he feels its his mission to correct the Spirit of Vatican II errors and have the documents of the Council interpreted correctly. He’s one of the last men on earth who could do that because he was there at the Council and actually wrote some of the texts.

With respect, I think saying “who knows” deprives Catholics of knowing the means by which the devil worked a relatively short time ago. Eyewitnesses are still around. I’ve been able to piece a good part of it together. Books have been written about Vatican II and it should not be too difficult to get contemporary published articles.

There are priests on Catholic Radio talking about that period because they were there. No more guitar masses, more reverence. No more telling parishioners that artificial birth control is for them to decide using their own conscience.

My God, reading a few posts here, a few people might think the Civil War (ended 1865) is better documented than Vatican II and to think that is just plain wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[brotherhrolf]

My God, reading a few posts here, a few people might think the Civil War (ended 1865) is better documented than Vatican II and to think that is just plain wrong.

As I know all too well from years of posting on the Civil War on these forums, no amount of documentation is going to convince some people that there were other causes beyond slavery despite hundreds of books to the contrary. If there is that level of controversy over an event that ended 145 years ago, then it comes as no surprise to me that an event 45 years ago can be any less controversial.

I have read what Vatican II actually said and lived through what actually happened. I think that Pope Paul VI recognized this when he said that the smoke of Satan had entered the church. Things got way out of hand very quickly and have continued to this day. I also firmly believe that the current Holy Father is attempting to gently guide us back.

If you think they haven’t continued, let me give an example - the Sign of Peace. When the NO was officially adopted that First Sunday of Advent in 1969, the Sign of Peace was simply turning to one’s neighbor and saying “peace be with you”. By the late 70’s, a handshake was inserted. By the early 80’s, it became way more than that to the point where priests were leaving the sanctuary and running up and down the aisles greeting people. By the 90’s, people were hugging and crossing the aisles and what was intended to be a simple gesture has become in some parishes a minutes long “love fest” which just completely takes one’s mind off of what should be the Sacred Mystery. None of that is specified in the rubrics. It evolved in the “Spirit of Vatican II”. There is nothing in the council documents specifying this much less authorizing it.

 

[edwest2]

As I know all too well from years of posting on the Civil War on these forums, no amount of documentation is going to convince some people that there were other causes beyond slavery despite hundreds of books to the contrary. If there is that level of controversy over an event that ended 145 years ago, then it comes as no surprise to me that an event 45 years ago can be any less controversial.

I have read what Vatican II actually said and lived through what actually happened. I think that Pope Paul VI recognized this when he said that the smoke of Satan had entered the church. Things got way out of hand very quickly and have continued to this day. I also firmly believe that the current Holy Father is attempting to gently guide us back.

If you think they haven’t continued, let me give an example - the Sign of Peace. When the NO was officially adopted that First Sunday of Advent in 1969, the Sign of Peace was simply turning to one’s neighbor and saying “peace be with you”. By the late 70’s, a handshake was inserted. By the early 80’s, it became way more than that to the point where priests were leaving the sanctuary and running up and down the aisles greeting people. By the 90’s, people were hugging and crossing the aisles and what was intended to be a simple gesture has become in some parishes a minutes long “love fest” which just completely takes one’s mind off of what should be the Sacred Mystery. None of that is specified in the rubrics. It evolved in the “Spirit of Vatican II”. There is nothing in the council documents specifying this much less authorizing it.

Oh brother, The Sign of Peace turned me into a reprobate. I can’t shake my neighbor’s hand. The shock made me do sinful things… Give me a break, please. There are Vatican Archives. A Pope from World War II is on a list to be canonized.

There is no doubt, since I was there, and an adult, that the ‘love fest’ you speak of so dramatically was not. I think the Sign of Peace was a better idea than people getting into their cars after puting in their one hour and having no sense of community or knowing the identity or even acknowledging the person they were standing next to in Church. The Catholic community goes to Mass, not individuals. The more we acknowledge each other, the less likely we’ll turn into people who are isolated as Catholics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ed, there are a whole bunch of us on this forum who grew up before Vatican II and were happy with HMC as she existed up until 1967 when the changes hit. I was watching a travel show last night and they visited a Benedictine monastery in northern Italy where the Mass was a TLM and the monks were in choir chanting in Latin. I cried. I always do. We have lost so much.

I am very fortunate to be a member of a reverent cathedral parish much less to have had the honor of singing in its choir for 20 years. The Sign of Peace is always very restrained. I have not even mentioned “doing the wave” with the Pater Noster. From the choir loft, it was always amazing to see when we had visitors who wanted to link hands and the baffled looks on their faces when members of the parish refused to do so. That was an “innovation” of the late 80’s or so.

As for community…my kids grew up with coffee and doughnuts after Mass in the parish hall. They were never uncomfortable talking to their elders and folks knew them. Neither wanted to be an altar boy but my oldest was the very first high school kid to become a lector. We had high school kids in the choir. The parish does not have a school and it is in an abandoned downtown. The overwhelming majority of parishoners do not live within the actual confines of the parish. People join the cathedral parish because they want reverence. They want to hear chant and Latin motets. And you should hear them sing when we sing the old traditional hymns we knew as kids. (e.g. Praise to the Lord and Holy God We Praise Thy Name).

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your reply brotherhrolf.

My problem was the visible changes in my Catholic Community beginning in the early 1970s. Catholics, who up to that time, were self-restrained, open and living out their faith, began to change. It began with their children who decided to rebel. A mother, a total stranger, asked me into her home. “What’s wrong with my son? He won’t listen to me anymore. He’s associating with the wrong people. He’s taking illegal drugs. Can you, because you’re around his age, explain this to me?”

Young people were encouraged to ignore everybody in authority. This mental rejection led to physical action. A gradual decline in marriages. Gradually, cohabitation increased. Young people were encouraged to ignore their parents and their relatives. I heard one young man tell his parents, “When I turn 18 you can’t tell me what to do anymore.”

Then, when No-Fault Divorce hit. It was OK. The devastating loss of the children was ignored. Fathers estranged from their wives, from their children. The pain felt by In-Laws on both sides. The breaking of all those relationships.

I didn’t cry after the Mass went to English but I cry now over the gradual corruption of not just a Catholic community but of those who had a duty and a commitment to giving people things that were uplifting for our community to gradually accepting poison – porn, divorce is no big deal - cohabitating is no big deal.

As our grip on what was meant to be a committed Catholic life was gradually, subtly loosened by the media around us, we succumbed. The radio went from playing songs about love and devotion to George Michael in 1990 with I Want Your Sex (you don’t need no Bible just look in my eyes). A song which was banned in parts of the US and UK. But the lawyers came out and the pressure groups came out – You Can’t Ban or Censor Anything - and we’ve got the money to fight it.

And the Church continued to speak, simply and without pressure. I heard about a local parish priest who had had enough of the profanity he was hearing from kids. In Church, he told their parents about some of the words he was hearing, hopeful for a change.

When the family suffers, the Church in that part of the world suffers.

I pray not for a return to a previous period of time but a return to a life of prayer, of open commitment to living as a witness to the Gospel, to self-restraint, to love and compassion. My Confirmation sponsor was friends to all the children in our neighborhood. I miss him. He was a true Catholic role model.

Thanks for reading this,
Ed

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ah! Ed, I better understand but I am sad to say I do not have an answer for you.

I am viewed by some on this forum as an ultra-traditional right-wing Catholic when all I am doing is espousing HMC as I knew it. I went to Confession at least once a week back then. Confession was widely available. All through high school, I knew I could go to a certain church in downtown New Orleans and there were at least two priests in the confessional all day. Quite important for a hormonal teenager back then.

I am happy to report that my diocese (as Father Z reported this morning about Boston) is offering Confession for an hour on Wednesday nights during Lent at centrally located parishes in the diocese.

 

[CradleCath]

Ah! Ed, I better understand but I am sad to say I do not have an answer for you.

I am viewed by some on this forum as an ultra-traditional right-wing Catholic when all I am doing is espousing HMC as I knew it. I went to Confession at least once a week back then. Confession was widely available. All through high school, I knew I could go to a certain church in downtown New Orleans and there were at least two priests in the confessional all day. Quite important for a hormonal teenager back then.

I am happy to report that my diocese (as Father Z reported this morning about Boston) is offering Confession for an hour on Wednesday nights during Lent at centrally located parishes in the diocese.

Ditto for all in paragraph one & I just wanted to share with you that I went to
Confession in an actual confessional for the first time in 24 years… last Easter Week.
Before that I went in a “reconciliation room”, before that…I was told that general absolution was given at Mass & that was “enough”.

I’ve also lit candles for my brother who is sick & others in my family for various reasons. Hadn’t been able to do that since 1969! I know that’s just an old custom that isn’t really needed anymore, but it sure gives me comfort.

The parish that I’ve attended for 2 years, not only offers the Latin Mass…It also has the Stations of the Cross every Friday night during Lent. Now that’s a BIGGIE.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My parish still has and uses its confessionals. The other parish that I use to go to confession has the option of face-to-face or use of a traditional confessional screen.

I have never experienced general absolution but I thought I understood that you were supposed to follow it up with private confession.

I miss being able to light a candle too.

 

[Malleus_01]

There is in " You Tube " an Easter Mass from the 1940’s I came across a year or so ago. As for the Church being overly strict in those days - I think its strict by todays standards - but then - a lot of people of my generation (I am 53) can attest that their fathers at home thought nothing of taking out the belt and wearing out some leather when we went afoul of their rules. I remember having to kneel for the entire class when I didnt have my homework done but you what - I didnt think it overly harsh at the time - I felt it just for me not doing what I should have done. The Sisters were not the tyrants people make them out to be. As for the Church - Mass was reverant. Women covered their heads and people wore their Sunday Best (the best clothing they own) The Mass was in Latin - but the Missals had english on the right and Latin on the left as well as English for the Epistle and Gospel. The music was 100 % Catholic. No guitars or protestant hymns like amazing grace. No “sign of peace.” And you kneeled for Holy Communion at the Communion Rail under one Species.

Hope this helps

Pax

 

[brotherhrolf]

I know that video. Archbishop Sheen narrated. But you are right. It wasn’t any different from what we got at home. If I cut up at school, I got it far worse when I got home.

 

[CradleCath]

I know that video. Archbishop Sheen narrated. But you are right. It wasn’t any different from what we got at home. If I cut up at school, I got it far worse when I got home.

I fear that myself & my friends were a bit “ornery’”, though we didn’t do drugs or anything that might hurt others, in fact, I didn’t drink a beer until I was a senior in high school. However, we weren’t above a prank or two. I bear the dubious honor of being the only one in my class to endure a 3 day suspension during my senior year. A bunch of us decided it would be great fun to smoke on the school grounds. I didn’t smoke & neither did most of my friends, so I have no idea who brought the cigarettes. Anyway, our plan was to stand so close to the building that the nuns could not see us out of the windows. We never thought about the doors. Most got away during the confusion that ensued when one of the sisters was heard decending the stairs ro come out of the kitchen door. I didn’t. You’re right, I only got 3 days out of school (not knowing whether they accept me back so that I could graduate with my friends). However, I was grounded for 3 MONTHS at home. My Dad had to accompany me to the Convent, while I asked to be received back & he was very angry about that. I remember him telling me that from now on, I was NOT to get into trouble that I couldn’t get out of, myself, cause he sure as H— wasn’t going back & sit in the parlor on those dainty little French Provincial Chairs.

I have great respect for the nuns that taught me. They took a lot of junk & gave back a lot of love & compassion. They believed in me far more than I believed in myself during those teenage years & I don’t think I would have gone to college if they hadn’t encouraged me so much.

Archbishop Sheen narrated

Oh yes, the whole family had to watch “The Hour of Power”, with Archbishop Sheen every Friday night. That & the “Friday Night Fights”. I often missed the fights because I had a date. But, there was no getting away from the Archbishop. If I did have a date, he was invited in to watch. You won’t believe how much that embarrassed me then & how glad I am that my parents insisted on that NOW.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I talked on the stairs going up to the classroom in 8th grade. The guy I talked to is now a Brother. We got paddled. I lived in greater fear of what would happen when I got home so I never cut up in high school.

I still try to catch Abp. Sheen on EWTN. Gosh, he was a terrific speaker.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Your mention of confessionals as opposed to reconciliation rooms has prompted this question: What is the procedure for using one? How do you know the priest is in there? How does he know you are in there? I saw some odd looking ones in the churches in Rome last summer. The had a more open and bench-like appearance. I was confirmed in the Church 15 years ago this Easter, as a former protestant. I barely remember the confessionals, with doors and little red and green lights which were ripped out just before I finished RCIA. Our altar rail came out then, too. I didn’t understand any of what was happening. I was told we were “remodeling.” We also had a handicapped priest at the time and some of the altar changes were presented as making things accessible for him, as in taking out the rail etc; Then they rolled the donated piano into the sanctuary and the choir has been in the front pews ever since. They are always out of sync with the standing and kneeling which I think is confusing. We do still have candles; I had no idea some people didn’t even get to keep their candles. My church looks very bare and quite protestant these days. It makes me so sad. I am a lover of ritual and tradition and have only lately been realizing what has been lost. There are two lovely statues of Mary and Joseph that were installed in the fellowship hall. In the santuary are a pair of very bland colorless statues blending in with the wall. I always wanted to place the lovely ones back in the santuary. What do you all think of holding out your hands during the Our Father? Our bishop asked that we do that for the sake of unity, but many still hold hands. I just gave up the weird hand position and opted to close my eyes, bow my head, and fold my hands. I guess that is bellligerent.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Oh, and one more thing. Where the altar used to be we have a very blank, large, wall that looks very empty. In the middle of it was installed an ascending Christ that seems lost, floating in the middle. However, just recently, the sun shone thru the little windows on the side walls at the top and for a moment the whole aqua colored wall around the ascending Christ was touched in such a way with the shadows and sun that He looked like He was in the heavenly clouds.