Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

[brotherhrolf]

Generally speaking with older confessionals, you could see the priests feet at the bottom of the curtain. If I am not mistaken there is a light inside his portion of the confessional that alerts him to your presence. If not, I am sure he can hear you and if not that, clearing one’s throat works too.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

I don’t think it’s belligerent to to forsake all of the different hand “motions”, shaking hands, holding them & raising them during the doxology. For me, that’s an interruption at a crucial time during the Mass & is totally unnecessary.

I left a parish, much like yours, two years ago & found an unwreckovated parish with a Latin Mass every week. We have, as I said, actual confessionals, we kneel at the Altar Rail for Communion, we can still light a candle & the rosary is said before Mass. The prayers advised by Pope Leo, thus called the Leonine Prayers, are recited after every Mass. I especially like the Prayer for Protection to St. Michael the Archangel.

the-american-catholic.com/2010/01/24/pope-leo-and-saint-michael-the-archangel/

 

[reggieM]

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?

In the semi-old days (1950’s version of traditionalism ) confessionals had electric lights – like traffic lights. If someone was in the box, the light was red. When it was open, the light was green. I don’t know what they did before electricity - but maybe just a low-tech approach was to leave the door open (or the curtain open) if it was available.

How does he know you are in there?

That’s a great question (as the others are). If the priest is young enough to have sensitive hearing, he’ll listen carefully for the penitent to kneel down. If he’s losing his hearing, you might have to clear your throat or rustle around a bit so he hears you. If he’s really old, you might have to just start, “Bless me Father …” Some of the semi-old boxes have electronic gadgets built in the kneeler. That was high-tech Catholicism for the 1950s – like fins on a Cadillac. What it did was, the kneeler had a spring-loaded lever which tripped a connection when pressed down (when someone was kneeling). Then, a light went on in the priest’s box so he knew someone was there. At the same time, the red light went on outside the box. Cool! This was a very nice concept for the classic confessional boxes that have two sides and the priest in the middle. So, the priest would see the “left box” had a penitent. So, he’d slide the screen for that person. Then the right box would get filled and he’d see that also.
But the electronic lighting was nice because the priest didn’t have to try to hear who was kneeling.

I saw some odd looking ones in the churches in Rome last summer. The had a more open and bench-like appearance.

There are so many wonderfully odd Catholics things in Rome that it teaches us a lot. Some of the “old, old” confessionals were more open. The “newer old” confessionals were closed boxes.

I was confirmed in the Church 15 years ago this Easter, as a former protestant.

Congratulations! – that is a very big milestone for you.

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;

That is one of those wonderfully deceitful, manipulative and ‘pastoral’ strategies that someone came up with in some back ropmin some unknown liturgy office. The same excuse was used hundreds of times thereafter. I heard exactly the same thing in several parishes (I followed wreckovation announcements for a while). In parishes where they didn’t have a handicapped priest, they had to improvise another “reason” (like maybe “future retired priests will need this”).

Then they rolled the donated piano into the sanctuary and the choir has been in the front pews ever since.

That’s classic. Tear out the altar rails because they’re an “obstruction” and then put a grand piano in the sanctuary so the priest has to walk around it.

We do still have candles; I had no idea some people didn’t even get to keep their candles.

Oh yes. Candles were deemed antiquated or “false” somehow. Of course, they couldn’t say that. Instead, they claimed that they were “fire hazzards”. The same candles that have been lit safely for a hundred years, suddenly became a danger to everyone in the late 1980s. The fact is, they didn’t want people practicing “private devotions” because now, supposedly the church building was meant only for “the worshipping community” and if the entire community didn’t light the candle, then it was just a “selfish devotion” – yes, they became that insane (and historians should remember this for the future).

The good news is that this kind of insanity is slowly fading and the new generation wants a sacred atmosphere and contemplative prayer in church again. Pope Benedict is a very strong supporter of this “return of the sacred” in our churches. (His writings are quite powerful on this – *The Spirit of the Liturgy *is one).

My church looks very bare and quite protestant these days. It makes me so sad.

It was a sad and crazy experiment. After many decades of suffering through this issue, I think I have finally understood the reason for this iconclasm and stripping of the church buildings. I have almost become sympathetic to those who made that decision in good faith. But I also experience the sadness and damage that this has done, spiritually - to myself and many others I know. It’s a complex and difficult issue. I think the “right solution” will emerge in the near future as church buildings are “re-beautified” once again. I am seeing that happen in many places now – even among so-called “liberal Catholics” who were on the forefront of the protestantizing movement. Some of them hate the Puritan architecture as much as some traditionalists do.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Again, while I’m venting (and thanks for the patience to all reading this), I hate that kind of thing – and it also happened everywhere (again, a back-room decision meant to deceive or manipulate the faithful). When questioned: “What happened to our beautiful statues”, the answer was “We updated them and put them in an even better place – the Fellowship Hall”! Then we saw the “updated” versions and they were colorless – matching the exact color of the wall. So, it took a strain to even see that they were there. Thus, the renovators could say, “See? We didn’t get rid of statues.”. No, they just made them as invisible as possible. Plus, they used artistic designs that downplayed the devotional facial and body expressions on the beautiful classic Catholic statues. I could go on, and on … again, I’m sorry for the venting.

In the santuary are a pair of very bland colorless statues blending in with the wall.

Exactly. As above, it was deliberate. It wasn’t just “newer art” but it was a plan to downplay the image entirely. Ok, I can fully understand the repugnance that some feel towards tasteless or sentimental Catholic statues. Some were not of high artistic quality. Also, I fully agree that some (sadly rare few) modern Catholic artworks are superb and tasteful and sincerely devotional. I have seen some magnificent works produced in the 20th century in a modern style. Stations of the Cross that were modern, but also realistic and as sorrowful and deep as they should be. Actually, much of the modern Catholic art in Roman shops is wonderfully sincere and faithful. Others are as ugly as we’re familiar with also – but not all.
Instead, in the U.S. we got most of the ugly or bland stuff. I has a huge effect – those are not just “nice decorations” but images of the Faith.

What do you all think of holding out your hands during the Our Father?

I understand why many feel the need for this and many want it. I think we should address that need in other, more appropriate ways and not impose the solution to that problem on the liturgy.

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.

No, it’s not belligerent. The hand posture is an option. It can be recommended one way or another, but one great thing about the Vatican II approach is that it is more widely accepted that people have different, legitimate, personal approaches to spirituality. There are monastic, contemplative and active, teaching apostolic ministeries and religious orders.

While we shouldn’t have disharmony and individualism during the liturgy, we’re all living through a time of fluxuation and transition. New liturgical traditions have not been established. One diocese (like yours) will recommend hand-holding. Others, will recommend against it.

This is good in many ways, although very uncomfortable and it has its downside. We’ll travel through some confusion – but I recall the weird experimentations of decades past and we’re actually settling down more.

With the wider spread of the Extraordinary Form of Mass, we’ll see even more changes – but those will end up establishing a restoration of older traditions - mixed with the best of the new (I don’t think hand-holding will survive). In the meatime, we have to weather the storm and pray for patience for all (ourselves and others).

 

[newearth]

i think the reason for the vatacan 2 change was to make it more inviting for non catholics to come to the true church… me?.. born 1942 and i remember the mass the way it was… the creed changed the our father changed. no one believes the trinity no more or its hardly mentiond. but there are churches that do mass the way it was. like where i am there are latin masses in some churches. check with your church on that. i myself have a problem accepting the changes.

 

[reggieM]

i think the reason for the vatacan 2 change was to make it more inviting for non catholics to come to the true church…

I agree and I actually think that part has been fairly successful. I have not liked much of it, but I have to admit that changes have been very helpful for non-Catholics and I know several good Catholics who converted from Protestantism who benefitted greatly from the changes.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<<<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. >>>>

Most of the Old Confessionals had a small sliding door with a screen of some short and when it opened you couldnt see the Priest but you would start your confession because the Priest would open the little sliding door so you knew he was ready.

<<<< 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. >>>>

Yes - I agree most of the changes were nonsense. But as for the Altar rail - have you read what Mother Theresa said about Communion in the Hand?

<<<<< 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. >>>>>

At my house I have a full length Our Lady of Guadalupe picture that the local Church “didnt want”. There are traditional chapels springing up because a lot of people feel like you do.

<<<<<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.>>>>>

Church unity occurs when we recieve the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. There is no need for the Sign of Peace or hand holding

<<<<< 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. >>>>

Its a matter of perspective. Are we in church for a horizontal service where our interaction with our neighbor is accentuated or are we there for a vertical service where our interaction is from man in unity in adoration of GOD above accentuated? IMO - our focus should be on GOD at all times. Therefore - when the Our Father is prayed in a Latin Mass - the Congregation is kneeling which it does after the Sanctus Sanctu Sanctus up until Holy Communion. I no longer attend the new mass.

 

[reggieM]

IMO - our focus should be on GOD at all times. Therefore - when the Our Father is prayed in a Latin Mass - the Congregation is kneeling which it does after the Sanctus Sanctu Sanctus up until Holy Communion.

I don’t follow the logic.

Our focus should be on God at all times.
Therefore, when the Our Father is prayed, the Congregation is kneeling.

Conclusions …

1. When we’re kneeling, we’re focusing on God. When we’re not, we’re not focusing on God.
2. Since we should focus on God “at all times” during Mass – then we should kneel through the entire Mass.
3. Since the traditional Latin Mass calls for standing and sitting – these postures are wrong since we cannot focus on God during those times.
4. Therefore, the Tridentine Mass is a false form of worship and should be avoided.

Or perhaps this …

1. Kneeling is the most important posture
2. Since there are parts of Mass where we don’t kneel, that just means those parts of Mass (like the Offertory and Gospel) are not very important.

Here’s another one …

1. In the earliest Catholic liturgies, there was no kneeling on Sunday. This remains true today in Eastern Rites.
2. Since we kneel at the Our Father and Sanctus, and that means we are focusing entirely on God – those Early Liturgies (from the Apostolic era) were wrong.

We can prove this because we have kneelers in true, traditional Catholic chapels, and the Early Catholic churches did not (for over 1,000 years). Kneelers were introduced after the Protestant Reformation (Protestants innovated benches which Catholic parishes copied).

Therefore Protestants are correct???

 

[malphono]

when the Our Father is prayed in a Latin Mass - the Congregation is kneeling …

Keep in mind that the liturgical paradigm has always been Solemn Mass (missa solemnis), and note that there (and in a missa cantata) the congregational posture for the Pater has always been to stand.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Yes, indeed. We knelt for the Pater Noster in a Low Mass but we stood and chanted the Pater Noster in a Missa Cantata or Missa Solemnis. We remained standing until after the Agnus Dei - they same way we do today. At least here in the United States.

We get a lot of visitors from France on the Mississippi River cruise paddle wheelers. They stand all the way through when the rest of us are kneeling. Something that would not have been done 45 years ago. When in Rome…

 

[malphono]

Yes, indeed. We knelt for the Pater Noster in a Low Mass but we stood and chanted the Pater Noster in a Missa Cantata or Missa Solemnis.

Very interesting indeed: even after de musica sacra (1958) reinforced the practice, it was the rare diocese (or parish) where the Pater Noster was sung by the assembly.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Very interesting indeed: even after de musica sacra (1958) reinforced the practice, it was the rare diocese (or parish) where the Pater Noster was sung by the assembly.

It was the norm in the Archdiocese of New Orleans. My wife grew up in the country between Baton Rouge and New Orleans and she grew up with the Missa Cantata too. I grew up chanting the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei in Latin as well as all other responses that we normally respond to in the OF today. The Masses at 10 and 12 on Sunday in my parish were always either a Missa Cantatata or a Missa Solemnis.

Baton Rouge became a diocese in its own right in the 60s. When I joined the cathedral parish in 1983 we were still chanting the Asperges/Vidi Aquam before Mass.

 

[reggieM]

Very interesting indeed: even after de musica sacra (1958) reinforced the practice, it was the rare diocese (or parish) where the Pater Noster was sung by the assembly.

True. It was a late “innovation” in the traditional Rite, part of the several versions of the Dialogue Mass which were encouraged by the Holy See in the late 1950s through the early '60s. In my biased opinion, if the dialogue Mass had been more widespread there would have been less chaos in the changes. Additionally, if the chant had truly been sung by the people (as Jubilate Deo had encouraged), it would not have disappeared so quickly.

But at the same time, those movements were modifications to the traditional Mass – very much of the kind of thing that Vatican II was aiming at (the Council directed that Latin be preserved, etc) – basically the outgrowth of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement (Jungmann, Parsch, Guardini, Dom Gueranger).

Some places had already adopted those changes and in my limited view of it, they were liturgically healthier. People didn’t have the false notion that “Vatican II allowed us to participate at Mass”. The introduction of sung parts of the Mass didn’t cause shock because people had been chanting the ordinary parts for years …

Scranton, PA was one such place. I didn’t know New Orleans had done that also – it says something about the good quality of the bishops and clergy there at the time (again, in my layman’s opinion only).

 

[brotherhrolf]

. I didn’t know New Orleans had done that also – it says something about the good quality of the bishops and clergy there at the time (again, in my layman’s opinion only).

New Orleans was a huge archdiocese back then. Two dioceses have been split off from NO. Baton Rouge and Houma-Thibodeaux. I have a friend who grew up in Houma who is just a few years younger than me and he grew up with Missa Cantatas too.

 

[jeanannemarie]

I would like to thank all who posted in reference to my thoughts.Nice to know I’m not the only one who thinks this way. But in post 106 the part about what Mother Teresa thought about CITH, I have no idea! Please don’t keep me in suspense, because it would take me forever to find this on my own! Call me lazy.

 

[Malleus_01]

Originally Posted by Malleus 01
when the Our Father is prayed in a Latin Mass - the Congregation is kneeling …

Keep in mind that the liturgical paradigm has always been Solemn Mass (missa solemnis), and note that there (and in a missa cantata) the congregational posture for the Pater has always been to stand.

Mal: Thats correct - I was referring to Low Mass not Solemn High Mass. But keep in mind - at the Latin Solemn High Mass we arent holding hands either. And how many Solemn High Masses do we have a year where we hold hands? The answer is zero.

I don’t follow the logic.

Our focus should be on God at all times.
Therefore, when the Our Father is prayed, the Congregation is kneeling.

Conclusions …

1. When we’re kneeling, we’re focusing on God. When we’re not, we’re not focusing on God.

Mal: When we are looking for our Neighbors Hand we are distracted whether Standing or Kneeling.

1. Since we should focus on God “at all times” during Mass – then we should kneel through the entire Mass.

Mal: Thats not what I said. Now you can intimate that this is what I said - But in Latin Mass our attention is on GOD and not in Holding Hands with the Person next to us and whether kneeling or standing both we and our neighbor should be concentrating on that IMO.

1. Since the traditional Latin Mass calls for standing and sitting – these postures are wrong since we cannot focus on God during those times.

Mal: Actually the reverse is true since the People are interacting with the Priest and through the Priest GOD according to the Rubrics and the People are both Standing Genuflecting and Kneeling as one depending on the Rubrics instead of Interacting with one another by offering the Sign of Peace or Holding Hands or recieving in the Hand or having to receive under both species and all the shenaigans put in by the Modernists.

1. Therefore, the Tridentine Mass is a false form of worship and should be avoided.

Mal: Not worthy of comment. A ridiculous conclusion.

Or perhaps this …

1. Kneeling is the most important posture

Mal: Well when it comes to receiving Holy Communion thats true - but then without communion rails you just go up there and stick out your hand - and then you wonder why the reverance for the Real Presence is down with many so called Catholics no longer believing in this dogma.

1. Since there are parts of Mass where we don’t kneel, that just means those parts of Mass (like the Offertory and Gospel) are not very important.

Mal: Well when the changes under Paul the VI came along - the offertory was completely revised - so instead of the Body and Blood being offered for Propitiation its the fruit of the vine and the work of human hands.And the fact that most modern Churches use the NAB which was compiled with the Imput of Protestant theologians instead of the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome circa 380 AD under Pope Damasus so I believe you probably do feel that way.

Here’s another one …

1. In the earliest Catholic liturgies, there was no kneeling on Sunday. This remains true today in Eastern Rites.

Mal: And how many of the Eastern Rites in the Earliest Catholic liturgies Hold Hands during the Our Father and offer each other the sign of Peace? Just wondering.

1. Since we kneel at the Our Father and Sanctus, and that means we are focusing entirely on God – those Early Liturgies (from the Apostolic era) were wrong.

Mal: Once again , you have missed the point. Whether you Kneel or Stand isnt at issue - what is at issue is the Interaction of the Laity in the Pews with each other takes away from the attention that should always be directed to GOD. What part of that seems confusing to you?

We can prove this because we have kneelers in true, traditional Catholic chapels, and the Early Catholic churches did not (for over 1,000 years). Kneelers were introduced after the Protestant Reformation (Protestants innovated benches which Catholic parishes copied).

Mal: Perhaps you should visit the Catholic Encyclopedia under Genuflexion which totally debunks this idiocy. Example: But when the occasion was one of special solemnity, or the petition very urgent, or the prayer made with exceptional fervour, the Jewish suppliant knelt. Besides the many pictorial representations of kneeling prisoners, and the like, left us by ancient art, Genesis 41:43 and Esth., iii, 2 may be quoted to show how universally in the East kneeling was accepted as the proper attitude of suppliants and dependents. Thus Solomon dedicating his temple “kneeling down in the presence of all the multitude of Israel, and lifting up his hands towards Heaven”, etc. (2 Chronicles 6:13; cf. 1 Kings 8:54). Esdras too: “I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands to the Lord my God” (Ezra 9:5); and Daniel: “opening the windows in his upper chamber towards Jerusalem, he knelt down three times a day, and adored, and gave thanks before his God, as he had been accustomed to do before” (Daniel 6:10), illustrate this practice. Of Christ’s great prayer for His disciples and for His Church we are only told that “lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said”, etc. (John 17:1); but of His Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani: “kneeling down, he prayed” (Luke 22:41). The lepers, beseeching the Saviour to have mercy on them, kneel (Mark 1:40; cf. 10:17).

Therefore Protestants are correct???

Mal: The Catholic encyclopedia speaks of things existing for 1500 Years prior to the First Protestant. Wanna try again?

 

[Malleus_01]

Yesterday, 9:53 pm
jeanannemarie
Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2008
Location: rural Ohio
Posts: 179
Religion: Catholic

Re: Wanting to understand the pre-Vatican II Church

---

I would like to thank all who posted in reference to my thoughts.Nice to know I’m not the only one who thinks this way. But in post 106 the part about what Mother Teresa thought about CITH, I have no idea! Please don’t keep me in suspense, because it would take me forever to find this on my own! Call me lazy.

---

“Remember that the present day is given to you in order to gain the future day of eternity.” Saint Francis de Sales

Mal: Sorry - I should have included the quote.

I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.

John Paul II likewise was not a fan of it either. He once gave the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d’Estaing communion on the tongue despite the fact that she had her hand out. In Poland it is still illicit. It is not a universal practise. It was granted by Indult. In my opinion it has caused damage to reverance for the Real Presence , especially to the youth.

 

[reggieM]

Standing Genuflecting and Kneeling as one depending on the Rubrics instead of Interacting with one another by offering the Sign of Peace

Do you propose the removal of the Sign of Peace from the Tridentine Rubrics?

Whether you Kneel or Stand isnt at issue

You claimed that kneeling was the issue and now you’ve contradicted yourself. But that does help me to assess the rest of what you’re trying to say, so that is good.

Mal: The Catholic encyclopedia speaks of things existing for 1500 Years prior to the First Protestant. Wanna try again?

Yes, I’d like you to point out where it says that pews existed for 1500 years.

 

[neiacatholic]

After reading this thread – I have come to the conclusion that Vatican II is to blame for all the evil the world has encountered since the 1960.

But it is fortunate that Vatican II did happen — because you all can blame Vatican II for the sex scandal, low church attendance and any other unfortunate event that has occurred.

 

[edwest2]

After reading this thread – I have come to the conclusion that Vatican II is to blame for all the evil the world has encountered since the 1960.

But it is fortunate that Vatican II did happen — because you all can blame Vatican II for the sex scandal, low church attendance and any other unfortunate event that has occurred.

Such a statement is without foundation. Please explain how Vatican II created the following:

1960 The Pill.

1966 The radical National Organization for Women is founded.

1968 Pope Paul VI has Humanae Vitae published, encouraging Catholics to avoid the temptation of The Pill and other forms of artificial birth control. He lays out the consequences, including increased promiscuity. His warning is drowned out by the Hippies.

1969 The movie Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice introduces viewers to wife swapping.

1973 Abortion legalized by the Supreme Court.

1973 Homosexuality is removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by nonscientific vote.

1970s Adult Bookstores take people beyond nudity and offer graphic photos of prostitutes. They are backed by organized crime and judges and lawyers who claim ‘freedom of speech,’ freedom of the press,’ and the protection of the First Amendment (which they never receive). Topless bars and strip clubs appear.

1980s Porn on cable designed to be outside the control of the FCC. And in motels. TV begins its slide into depicting graphic dysfunctional behavior. A women drinking liquor straight from the bottle while driving.

1980s No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. Lawyers are the primary beneficiaries. “No kids? $75 and you’re out.”

1990s Thanks to NOW which created the fertile ground of mistrust and suspicion between women and ‘male chauvenist pigs,’ divorce rates increase. What is left in the '90s are parts of families. The pain felt by the wife, the husband, the children, the In-Laws. Church parking lots empty and mall parking lots fill up.

Shock jocks appear on the radio talking filth and interviewing prostitutes. Partial nudity and profanity appears on ABC. Then, the internet becomes the world’s biggest purveyor of porn 24/7.

In the background are organized and corrupt individuals who legalized all this. There are more porn addicts, and more TV addicts.

The 2000s usher in an assault on religion in general and Christianity in particular. The fruits of the decisions of lawyers, judges and organized crime are here for all to see.

Peace,
Ed