Where were the "traditionalists" in the late 1960's and 70's?

[Spiller]

I have long wondered why “traditionalists” (both ordained and lay) did not take a very hard stand at the unapproved liturgical innovations that began with the introduction of the Pauline Mass in the 1960’s before really taking off in the 1970s?

On the one hand I can see that many bishops/priests/seminarians were caught-up in the “excitement of the renewal of the liturgy.” OK, but there had to be a far larger number of bishops/priests/seminarians who also wanted to follow what the Church was actually directing. Why not take a hard stand then? Where did they go? Did they just flee?

Maybe they just had so much intrinsic respect for the clergy that they simply could not take a hard stand? Then again, there had to be a HUGE number of clergy that were appalled at what was taking place.

Since the jubilee of 2000 or so, I have seen many who have long supported unapproved liturgical innovation really dig-in with an almost desperate zeal to keep things as they are. (Thankfully the tide is changing, thanks particularly to our new pope.) Did “traditionalists” dig-in with the same level of ferocity in years past or did they flee? Why do some fight and some flee?

It may well be that the “traditionalist” movement was born out of rejecting many of the liturgical problems that arose during this period. OK, but if that’s the case, why does it seem like traditonalists are far slower to organize and mobilize than the opposition?

It might also be that no one – including the traditionalists had any idea of just how bad it was going to get. Or maybe without the Internet and EWTN, few even knew HOW to respond?

There are more than a few examples where unapproved liturgical innovations were simply not allowed, but by and large the problems spread like wildfire. Your ideas, please…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I have long wondered why “traditionalists” (both ordained and lay) did not take a very hard stand at the unapproved liturgical innovations that began with the introduction of the Pauline Mass in the 1960’s before really taking off in the 1970s?

On the one hand I can see that many bishops/priests/seminarians were caught-up in the “excitement of the renewal of the liturgy.” OK, but there had to be a far larger number of bishops/priests/seminarians who also wanted to follow what the Church was actually directing. Why not take a hard stand then? Where did they go? Did they just flee?
… Your ideas, please…

I’m reading Pope Paul’s Mass, by Michael Davies. It was originally published in 1980. The book answers your questions, by quoting the major Catholic publications from the mid '60’s onward, including a lot of letters to the editors.

It is an interesting book that explains exactly how the fraud was perpetrated… and “fraud” is exactly the right word. There was a lot of deception surrounding the changes being introduced, even before the new Mass itself came out.

The book was out of print for a while, but I think it is back in print now. If it is out of print, you can probably find it used. I think you would find the book very interesting, especially with the recent admission from the Pope that the old Mass was never abrogated.

 

[Chatter163]

The traditionalists WERE taking a hard stand, but were generally dismissed by clergy and laity, ridiculed, ignored or just sent away.

 

[sphilomena]

It might also be that no one – including the traditionalists had any idea of just how bad it was going to get. Or maybe without the Internet and EWTN, few even knew HOW to respond?

There’s much truth to that statement. Having lived through the “before and after”, I believe we were like the frog in cold water. (I guess we were almost all “traditionalists” in those days; there wasn’t much else to be.) The changes came about, and in 40 years a lot kept changing. Those who have read numerous books and studied the situation realize that much of what happened was unintended. That should be qualified: unintended by some, intended by those who deliberately left loopholes in V II documents. Some Cardinals, such as Ottaviani, warned about changing the Mass. Some who attended V II, rewrote “schemas” that were ready to be voted on. It would take volumes and volumes to fully answer your question.

 

[Joe17]

There were some priests and laymen resisting the changes. Some will only be known beyond the grave. Fr’s Robert Mckenna, O.P., Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., Lawrence Brey, Gommar DePauw, Fenton, and other priests caught on rather early to the liturgical revolution. Mr Patrick Henry Omlor wrote Questioning the Validity when the english canon adopted in October of 67. And I know of an informal meeting of priests out West that discussed the implications of the change from “for many” to “for all men” just before it took effect.
God does not always work with "large numbers." Look back in history and see how the schism of Henry VIII took hold of his country and how many Catholics stood up and how many compromised; the years before, they were all professing the same faith, and when push came to shove, most were not able to adhere to the faith and Rome. Our Lord will judge all hearts. But, we must go by objective facts and the objective actions of others.

 

[Joe17]

Also, I would recommend a book by a Mr Griff Ruby “the resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church.” I believe I got the title right. It goes into the early history of the trad movement. It also gives the doctrinal angle on the whole situation. I would also recommend “Tumultuous Times” by Frs Radecki, twin brothers. They give a summary of the Twenty ecumenical councils and then get into Vatican II and it’s aftermath. Great reference work.
Also recommend by Cardinal Manning of the Oxford Movement “The Pope and The Antichrist” put out by tradii books. His lectures given in 1861, originally titled “the Present Crisis Concerning the Holy See.” He took Sacred Scripture and Church Fathers and showed how the spreading ideas of religous liberty in his day is necessary for the Antichrist to come on the scene and that a certain obstacle needed to be put aside or eliminated for that to occur. The obstacle is the Papacy. Good, short read(96pgs). Written by a true apostle of Christ who was never censured for speaking or writing. Solid and you can take comfort that it is not coming from a post-VII trad.

God Bless

 

[brotherhrolf]

We didn’t have much of a choice. We submitted to the magesterium and voted with our feet going to earlier and earlier Masses where we didn’t have to sing those dreadful new hymns or finding churches where the full impact of the OF was offset by retaining some of the old customs.

Philomena has it right. The analogy of the frog in cold water is quite true. I had no idea that it was the intent to have the OF said in Latin. We had implemented the NO completely by the fall of 1968. There were minor tweaks after but it was done relentlessly by announcement from the pulpit.

I left my sophomore year in high school in the spring of 68. We still sang the old hymns and the brothers still dressed in their cassocks. Bam! when we came back in September most of the brothers had abandoned their cassocks for black pants, white shirts and black ties. The organ was out and the guitars were in. It was that rapid. And that transistion was reflected in our parishes too.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Evelyn Waugh was one. There is a small book put out by, I think IHS Press?, called “A Bitter Trial” consisting of a few journal entries and letters of his that touch on this difficult period. He died during the “Transitional Mass” era. **Three times **in the book he says “Pray God I will never apostasize, but this is very difficult to bear.” It’s so sad. :’(

Then there was the “Agatha Christie Indult” in 1971. Many intellectuals, not all of whom were Catholic, instinctively felt the great loss that it would be to the world were the TLM to be abrogated and wrote this letter to Pope Paul VI:

If some senseless decree were to order the total or partial destruction of basilicas or cathedrals, then obviously it would be the educated - whatever their personal beliefs - who would rise up in horror to oppose such a possibility. Now the fact is that basilicas and cathedrals were built so as to celebrate a rite which, until a few months ago, constituted a living tradition. We are referring to the Roman Catholic Mass. Yet, according to the latest information in Rome, there is a plan to obliterate that Mass by the end of the current year. One of the axioms of contemporary publicity, religious as well as secular, is that modern man in general, and intellectuals in particular, have become intolerant of all forms of tradition and are anxious to suppress them and put something else in their place. But, like many other affirmations of our publicity machines, this axiom is false. Today, as in times gone by, educated people are in the vanguard where recognition of the value of tradition in concerned, and are the first to raise the alarm when it is threatened. We are not at this moment considering the religious or spiritual experience of millions of individuals. The rite in question, in its magnificent Latin text, has also inspired a host of priceless achievements in the arts - not only mystical works, but works by poets, philosophers, musicians, architects, painters and sculptors in all countries and epochs. Thus, it belongs to universal culture as well as to churchmen and formal Christians. In the materialistic and technocratic civilisation that is increasingly threatening the life of mind and spirit in its original creative expression - the word - it seems particularly inhuman to deprive man of word-forms in one of their most grandiose manifestations. The signatories of this appeal, which is entirely ecumenical and non-political, have been drawn from every branch of modern culture in Europe and elsewhere. They **wish to call to the attention of the Holy See, the appalling responsibility it would incur in the history of the human spirit were it to refuse to allow the Traditional Mass to survive, even though this survival took place side by side with other liturgical reforms." **Signed: Harold Acton, Vladimir Ashkenazy, John Bayler, Lennox Berkeley, Maurice Bowra, Agatha Christie, Kenneth Clark, Nevill Coghill, Cyril Connolly, Colin Davis, Hugh Delargy, +Robert Exeter, Miles Fitzalan-Howard, Constantine Fitzgibbon, William Glock, Magdalen Gofflin, Robert Graves, Graham Greene, Ian Greenless, Joseph Grimond, Harman Grisewood, Colin Hardie, Rupert Hart-Davis, Barbara Hepworth, Auberon Herbert, John Jolliffe, David Jones, Osbert Lancaster, F.R. Leavis, Cecil Day Lewis, Compton Mackenzie, George Malcolm, Max Mallowan, Alfred Marnau, Yehudi Menuhin, Nancy Mitford, Raymond Mortimer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Iris Murdoch, John Murray, Sean O’Faolain, E.J. Oliver, Oxford and Asquith, William Plomer, Kathleen Raine, William Rees-Mogg, Ralph Richardson, +John Ripon, Charles Russell, Rivers Scott, Joan Sutherland, Philip Toynbee, Martin Turnell, Bernard Wall, Patrick Wall, E.I Watkin, R.C. Zaehner.

Supposedly when he saw that Agatha Christie, whose novels he enjoyed, was one of the signees, he granted the indult, which allowed the Bishops of England and Wales to give their priests permission to say the Older Form.

 

[Spiller]

The traditionalists WERE taking a hard stand, but were generally dismissed by clergy and laity, ridiculed, ignored or just sent away.

That really doesn’t make sense to me.

It would seem that there were AT LEAST as many “traditionalists” (particularly high in the Church) as there were people who wanted to promote unapproved changes to the Mass. There should have been more than enough resources to fight the problems back then…

 

[Spiller]

There were some priests and laymen resisting the changes. Some will only be known beyond the grave. Fr’s Robert Mckenna, O.P., Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., Lawrence Brey, Gommar DePauw, Fenton, and other priests caught on rather early to the liturgical revolution. Mr Patrick Henry Omlor wrote Questioning the Validity when the english canon adopted in October of 67. And I know of an informal meeting of priests out West that discussed the implications of the change from “for many” to “for all men” just before it took effect.

 God does not always work with "large numbers."  Look back in history and see how the schism of Henry VIII took hold of his country and how many Catholics stood up and how many compromised; the years before, they were all professing the same faith, and when push came to shove, most were not able to adhere to the faith and Rome.  Our Lord will judge all hearts.  But, we must go by objective facts and the objective actions of others.

It still does not explain why abuses were allowed to burn like wildfire. Yes, some remained true – but not nearly enough.

I am very curious about this. How did the abuses get a foothold when they were clearly wrong. There should have been a great many people opposing them…

 

[Spiller]

There’s much truth to that statement. Having lived through the “before and after”, I believe we were like the frog in cold water. (I guess we were almost all “traditionalists” in those days; there wasn’t much else to be.) The changes came about, and in 40 years a lot kept changing. Those who have read numerous books and studied the situation realize that much of what happened was unintended. That should be qualified: unintended by some, intended by those who deliberately left loopholes in V II documents. Some Cardinals, such as Ottaviani, warned about changing the Mass. Some who attended V II, rewrote “schemas” that were ready to be voted on. It would take volumes and volumes to fully answer your question.

But the contrast I use is the fierce resolve of those today who want the abuses to remain. Why are they so dug-in, yet the traditionalists of the 1960’s/70’s were not?

 

[Spiller]

We didn’t have much of a choice. We submitted to the magesterium and voted with our feet going to earlier and earlier Masses where we didn’t have to sing those dreadful new hymns or finding churches where the full impact of the OF was offset by retaining some of the old customs.

Philomena has it right. The analogy of the frog in cold water is quite true. I had no idea that it was the intent to have the OF said in Latin. We had implemented the NO completely by the fall of 1968. There were minor tweaks after but it was done relentlessly by announcement from the pulpit.

I left my sophomore year in high school in the spring of 68. We still sang the old hymns and the brothers still dressed in their cassocks. Bam! when we came back in September most of the brothers had abandoned their cassocks for black pants, white shirts and black ties. The organ was out and the guitars were in. It was that rapid. And that transistion was reflected in our parishes too.

So the entire magisterium from the Pope on down pushed the abuses? That’s difficult to believe – but it may have happened. Maybe even traditionalists (except for a handful) were on board with the abuses? That would explain a great deal. Heck, maybe there really weren’t any traditionalists per se back then – save for a handful?

You are describing the changes. What you are not describing is why traditionalists allowed them in most places.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The OP was asking for impressions from those of us who consider themselves traditional and why we did not act. I was in high school at the time. Consider what was going on in the US. Massive protests about all types of things. What happened in the summer of 68? In Chicago? Do you honestly think that all of us were as rebellious as some of us? Do you think that I had long hair, smoked pot…much less than my parents would have let me? They would have “killed” me. The great unsung story of my generation is how many of us adhered to the tenets of our parent’s generation.

No, the entire magesterium didn’t go hog-wild. But I can assure you the American church did. The sense of bewilderment was widespread. The appelation “traditional” Catholic did NOT exist back then. The average Catholic in the pew back then still adhered to what we had grown up with before Vatican II.

I can’t take you back in time and explain that one did not question Father much less the archbishop. The mindset was entirely different back then in so many ways. We would have been struck to the very core of our being to contest what HMC said. This is not to say that there were not those who took a very different view.

So much of what gives “tradtional” Catholics the courage to stand their ground is the direct response of seeing what happened in the last 40 years both in society and in HMC.

Take the time to watch some of the old TV programs…“Leave it to Beaver”; “Father Knows Best”, “Ozzie and Harriet”, “My Three Sons”. If you think that was “pie in the sky” think again. Those old shows reflected the values that were in place at the time. It was how I was raised.

I’m 56 now and have spent the last 40 years watching what has happened. I have driven 25 miles one way for the last 25 years to attend a reverent OF and to sing in a choir that still sings chant and Latin motets. The HF issued the MP and my bishop merely “acknowledged” it.

Am I going to go to the chancery and protest? No. But I am on record with Father (who was ordained before V II) that if he needs an altar server for an EF, I am there or if he needs me for a Schola I am there.

As a thirty plus year veteran of serving both state and federal governments, “acknowledging” something is bureaucratese for you can’t tell me what to do.

 

[otjm]

You might keep in mind that many, if not most adult Catholics in the 60’s who were more than say, 30 years old by the time the changes in the rubrics came, were by and large taught to “pray, pay and obey”. The group that represented the most vocal in not following authority were those under 30, and particularly those who were 25 and under; in other words, the baby boomers. Older Catholics were taught that the Church - represented to them as the priests, nuns and bishops, were the Law and were simply not questioned.

Society itself was a different culture. And society as exemplified in the Church was similar to, in many respects, the culture around them. It was not the people above 30 who were at the barricades over Viet Nam, but those who were going to serve - 18+; and in 1965 there weren’t a lot of barricades; that was 3 to 5 years later.

The very aspect of being traditionalist - following the rules - is what in part gave the changes so much leeway. The priests and nuns lead, and everyone else pretty much fell in step.

That is not to say that they were necessarily wholew-heartedly behind the changes. But to presume that they were somehow going to protest the changes is to misunderstand their mindset. One simply didn’t question.

Some, such as those signing the Agatha Christi letter noted above, were better educated in the faith than most in the pews. Adult education simply wasn’t a program at the parish. The Knights of Columbus and the Altar Society were active, St. Vincent DePaul was active. But none of that was particularly oriented towards adult faith education. Most of what anyone got in terms of adult education about the faith was in a 5 to 10 minute sermon on whatever topic the bishop chose for that week.

In short, the stage was well set for leaders to make rapid changes; not that this was thought out, as it was the status quo from back when the mind of man remembereth not. But the lack of education of a significant part of the faithful, coupled with a mindset that one did not question what Father said or Sister said, made the opportunity to make rapid changes without much protest from the pews.

As to comments about whether or not the EF was abrogated legally, it would help to keep in mind that de facto it was considered abrogated. The OF was issued, and there was dead silence in the process about the EF being available. I believe it was Benedict 16 who used the term “in principle” when referring to the fact that the EF was never legally abrogated. Coupled with that is the fact that we are one rite, and it made logical sense that one rite had one Order of Mass. Yes, the Roman rite had some subsets, but they were for the most part unknown, and not widely practiced outside of small geographical areas or groups. Just as most people are under the impression that the Cthoilc Church is the Roman (rite) Catholic Church, and know nothing or next to nothing of the Eastern rites, so most people know only of one Order of Mass. Almost everyone from the bottom up and the top down approached the question not from the legal standpoint of whether or not a legal abrogation had been made, but from a practical standpoint of “that’s what we did then and this is what we do now”. Those who maintained that there was never a legal abrogation, while technically correct, were seen as simply bucking the system and not on board by most. “This is what we are doing now” was the answer back. It is not unusual, for two people engaged in a heated discussion of what to do, to not view the question as an outsider to the discussion might view it; they become so entrenched in the positions they have that they are not taking a fresh, independent look at the question. JP 2 obviously treated the issue as a fact (whether factually abrogated or legally so) and tried to pry loose the EF through granting indults (which were then most often ignored completely or practically). B 16 came to the discussion with a different approach. The bottom line is that both tried to pry loose the EF to greater use; B 16 may have taken the more effective approach (time will tell). But that does not make JP 2 a liar, or wrong. The practical effect of both of them is that the OF is just that - the OF. And only time will determine how that plays out.

 

[Spiller]

No, the entire magesterium didn’t go hog-wild. **But I can assure you the American church did. ** The sense of bewilderment was widespread. The appelation “traditional” Catholic did NOT exist back then. The average Catholic in the pew back then still adhered to what we had grown up with before Vatican II.

Thanks for giving some historical perspective. If that’s true, it would explain a great deal. Although I have to say that Cardinals like Spellman of NY and McIntyre of Los Angeles (and likely others) certainly DID NOT go hog wild…

I can’t take you back in time and explain that one did not question Father much less the archbishop. The mindset was entirely different back then in so many ways. We would have been struck to the very core of our being to contest what HMC said. This is not to say that there were not those who took a very different view.

But the question still begs – if they were abuses, why did (at least) the American hierarchy go a long with them?

 

[HashemEchad]

There were some priests and laymen resisting the changes. Some will only be known beyond the grave. Fr’s Robert Mckenna, O.P., Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., Lawrence Brey, Gommar DePauw, Fenton, and other priests caught on rather early to the liturgical revolution. Mr Patrick Henry Omlor wrote Questioning the Validity when the english canon adopted in October of 67. And I know of an informal meeting of priests out West that discussed the implications of the change from “for many” to “for all men” just before it took effect.

 God does not always work with "large numbers."  Look back in history and see how the schism of Henry VIII took hold of his country and how many Catholics stood up and how many compromised; the years before, they were all professing the same faith, and when push came to shove, most were not able to adhere to the faith and Rome.  Our Lord will judge all hearts.  But, we must go by objective facts and the objective actions of others.

I’m old enough to remember Father Francis Fenton; although a non-Catholic, I became enamoured with the TLM via my formerly Catholic mother’s reminiscences of it.

As a teenager, I went in search of one to attend to see what it was like (after ignorantly stumbling into a modern mass at the local parish and leaving in confusion).

I found one via a Catholic neighbor, being held at a local Ramada Inn. It was run by the ORCM (Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement), and the Mass was said by Father Francis Fenton.

This was back in the late 1970s, so it was long ago!

I’m a religious Jew, but I truly love the TLM. What an absolute shame that the RCC got rid of it for the most part. And how obscene that for so many years, it was ‘forbidden’ to Catholics!

 

[HashemEchad]

Evelyn Waugh was one. There is a small book put out by, I think IHS Press?, called “A Bitter Trial” consisting of a few journal entries and letters of his that touch on this difficult period. He died during the “Transitional Mass” era. **Three times **in the book he says “Pray God I will never apostasize, but this is very difficult to bear.” It’s so sad. :’(

Then there was the “Agatha Christie Indult” in 1971. Many intellectuals, not all of whom were Catholic, instinctively felt the great loss that it would be to the world were the TLM to be abrogated and wrote this letter to Pope Paul VI:

Supposedly when he saw that Agatha Christie, whose novels he enjoyed, was one of the signees, he granted the indult, which allowed the Bishops of England and Wales to give their priests permission to say the Older Form.

Thank you for printing that letter from those asking for the TLM to remain, someone on here had told me about it, but I’d never seen it.

Good to know that other non-Catholics also appreciate the TLM, including a co-religionist of mine, Yehudi Menuhin!

 

[abucs]

I wasn’t there at the time but perhaps everyone was caught up in a ‘change is good mentality’.

There were lots of changes going on at the time and a lot of energy created from change so perhaps it was ‘The Age of Aquarius’ mentality or something.

In that environment perhaps it was harder to argue for the status quo ?

Change makes good media and helps the consumer economy tick over but perhaps it’s got to the stage now that more and more people want a change from change ?

Just a guess.

 

[stmaria]

=

Spiller;3526146]I have long wondered why “traditionalists” (both ordained and lay) did not take a very hard stand at the unapproved liturgical innovations that began with the introduction of the Pauline Mass in the 1960’s before really taking off in the 1970s?

The Traditionalist did take a stand. According to Father Bugnini, the main player in the writing of the New Mass:

“ a group of the faithful organized themselves 1964 ]…the name they chose was significant : Una voce…Una voce brought together the discontented, those opposed to all of the concillar innovations.”
“ Another group very active in the United States was The Remnant, which published a journal of the same name.”
“The promulgation of the new Order of the Mass…1969…caused traditionalist groups to focus their efforts on preserving the Tridentine form of the Mass…they critized the Missal of Paul VI as hereticial and Protestant and claimed that the Mass of St Pius V was the only authentic Mass.”
“…on November 30,1969 , the day on which the new Order of the Mass went into effect, the waters of some famous Roman fountains were stained red.
“ The Holy Father put up with those who publicly accused him of heresy. Even when confronted with high-level actions like that of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.”
“three international pilgrimages, also known as “marches on Rome”. The first took place on the feast of St Peter on 1970…a pilgrimage to the tomb of St Pius V and the tomb of St Peter… a prayer vigil during the night…all the activities were intended to strengthen fidelity to the traditional Mass and the Catechism of St Pius X.”
“In France the opposition soon came into the open and displayed intense hostility. The original instigator was Abbe Coache, who called for massive disobedience…The Abbe was suspended…and put on trial by the Roman Rota.”
“the movement started by Una voce spread and fragmented into a plethora of small groups…in 1971 and Italian newspaper listed twenty national Una voce associations…and the movement led by the Fraternity of St Pius X and the seminary at Econe [both of them founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre] “
.”
On June 29, 1972 Pope Paul made this speech which clearly shows the stress he was under from the resistance by the Traditinalists.
"We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the Council… it is as if the Church were destroying herself…“We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God:… Doubt, uncertainty ,questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation… We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.” Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.

 

[Chatter163]

That really doesn’t make sense to me.

It would seem that there were AT LEAST as many “traditionalists” (particularly high in the Church) as there were people who wanted to promote unapproved changes to the Mass. There should have been more than enough resources to fight the problems back then…

The problem is that you are only seeing the situation through purely secular, political lenses, in terms of “resources.” This shows no appreciation for the nature of spiritual battle.

As other have already pointed out, Catholics were being told that the changes were what the Church desired. Average Catholics–and I am including priests here–had always been taught to obey, and in many cases, they did so, believing that they were doing what the Church wanted, even when they themselves did not like it. The traditionalists, some of whose names have been mentioned in previous posts, were marginalized by bishops and other priests. It was not a matter of “resources”; it was a matter of that was the nature of authority, and most people supported the new Mass because they thought that was what they were supposed to do. And they followed their bishops’ leads and alienated those who did speak out.