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

[jj2011]

=

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.

I remember the situation growing up. Very few Latin rite priests-- probably less than one percent-- grasped the full import of the changes right away.

In the late sixties on Long Island we had Fr DePauw’s CTM and that was it-- or so it seemed. He would get quite passionate in his discourses, sometimes pounding on the pulpit. Then we heard of another group called ORCM. I remember going upstate one Sunday in the early seventies to attend Mass in a barn. As far as we knew there was no indult, no Ecclesia Dei, no motu proprio, no nothing. (Paul VI did give the British a tiny indult in 1971). A few years later the first SSPX priests came to Long Island. Many years later I learned that a retired priest had been saying the Mass in his sister’s basement, a few blocks from my home. He had to do it secretly or he’d get in trouble. That’s the way it was.

 

[Spiller]

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.

There really is no problem with my viewpoint…

Where were the loads of traditional bishops and priests? There had to be a HUGE NUMBER that accepted VC2, yet summarily rejected the abuses born under the guise of the “spirit of VC2.”

Am I wrong? Were there not a huge number of bishops and priests who rejected the abuses born under the guise of the “spirit of VC2”?

 

[Spiller]

I remember the situation growing up. Very few Latin rite priests-- probably less than one percent-- grasped the full import of the changes right away.

OK now I think we might be getting somewhere. Yes, that’s a good point. Like putting the toothpaste back into the tube.

In the late sixties on Long Island we had Fr DePauw’s CTM and that was it-- or so it seemed. He would get quite passionate in his discourses, sometimes pounding on the pulpit. Then we heard of another group called ORCM. I remember going upstate one Sunday in the early seventies to attend Mass in a barn. As far as we knew there was no indult, no Ecclesia Dei, no motu proprio, no nothing. (Paul VI did give the British a tiny indult in 1971). A few years later the first SSPX priests came to Long Island. Many years later I learned that a retired priest had been saying the Mass in his sister’s basement, a few blocks from my home. He had to do it secretly or he’d get in trouble. That’s the way it was.

Unauthorized celebration of the Tridentine Mass is an ancillary topic. I want to know why “traditionalists” did not fight abuses at the outset within the system? I think the beginning of your posting gives some insight.

Locally I have seen the dissenters dig-in with hardcore resolve now that true reform is taking place. They are almost desperate to keep things as they are. Thank God the tide has shifted – but I have to wonder why the level of resolve they display was not exhibited (by and large) by traditionalists in the past?

Someone already mentioned that Catholics by the tens of thousands cut and ran once the abuses began. How could that be? Why didn’t they stay to hold the fort?

 

[Spiller]

=

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

Hold on. I’m not interested in individuals’ gripes about the the fully authorized Pauline Mass. They don’t have a leg to stand on with their conspiracy theories, etc. etc. etc.

My interest lies with the wildfire of abuses that began during this period that in NO WAY are authorized by the rubrics of the Pauline Mass. Some will argue that such abuses are inherent in the Pauline Mass but that’s ludicrous.

Perhaps those that took a stand fought the wrong fight – they wanted to stop the Pauline Mass when they should have been focused on the abuses…

 

[Spiller]

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.

I think you’re right…

 

[sphilomena]

There really is no problem with my viewpoint…

Where were the loads of traditional bishops and priests? There had to be a HUGE NUMBER that accepted VC2, yet summarily rejected the abuses born under the guise of the “spirit of VC2.”

Am I wrong? Were there not a huge number of bishops and priests who rejected the abuses born under the guise of the “spirit of VC2”?

We have explained the process by telling you it was gradual. There were some, however, who recognized what was happening. I mentioned Cardinal Ottaviani; there was also Dietrich von Hildebrand, a brilliant man and writer. Read his books if you want to understand the period of change. Trojan Horse in the City of God is amazing in it’s analysis, very easy to read though.

The abuses you talk about and see today, didn’t happen right away. I truly believe that it is difficult to understand the unfolding of all this unless you lived through it. It has all been like a spreading cancer, although there are signs of hope now!

 

[sphilomena]

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.

No, wrong . I keep trying to explain. (Guess you just had to be there.) Are you guys reading what we write?

 

[Chatter163]

It is going to be quite difficult, if not impossible, to hold this discussion when the OP shoots down every point raised as “ancillary” or otherwise irrevelant to his original question. He demonstrates a limited knowledge of the history of the traditionalist movement, and seems to be attempting to limit the discussion to his very narrow conceptions, with little or no cognizance of points made by others.

I suspect that this new member’s chutzpah in doing so was powered by the “TLM Community billed $72K for Latin Mas” thread, in which he was a principal contributor. That discussion degenerated into a crass exchange concerning the costs associated with running a full-time TLM apostolate. Now he has started this thread, focused, to use his words, on “resources.” He sees the matter almost entirely through the beneficial prism of hindsight, does not recognize the evolving nature of the movement in response to evolving circumstances, nor does he appear to appreciate the limited picture that was available to most clergy and laity at the time. In other words, he takes 2008 perceptions and demands to know why they were not in place forty years ago.

It is not likely that anything positive will come from an exchange along these lines, and I would encourage others not to play the game according to these queer rules.

 

[sphilomena]

Good point. There has to be intelligent give and take. I’m outta here.

 

[brotherhrolf]

It is not likely that anything positive will come from an exchange along these lines, and I would encourage others not to play the game according to these queer rules.

I’m not dead yet! I’ve just been reduced to a foot note in the annals of history.

 

[stmaria]

Spiller;3530992]Hold on. I’m not interested in individuals’ gripes about the the fully authorized Pauline Mass. They don’t have a leg to stand on with their conspiracy theories, etc. etc. etc.

What conspiracy theory? Nothing but facts here.

My interest lies with the **wildfire of abuses **that began during this period that in NO WAY are authorized by the rubrics of the Pauline Mass.

What wildfire of abuses are you talking about?

Perhaps those that took a stand fought the wrong fight – they wanted to stop the Pauline Mass when they should have been focused on the abuses…/

What abuses? There were some between 1965-1970 while experimental masses were being held. THings like communion in the hand and unauthorized Eucharistic prayers, masses said in private homes, is that what you are talking about???

 

[KathleenElsie]

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?

The whole world was changing so quickly. Many of us were in a form of “shell shock” and did not know whom to go to for help.

Look at what we were living through. Our parents were the first generation that divorced and remarried without being shunned by society. With the spirit of VII changes it was easier for them and us to leave the “new” Catholic church and convince themselves that it was ok to do so. Since they had little or no knowledge of what true Protestants believed many just saw the NO as Protestant without the restrictions of Rome.

The family became unstable due to the mobility and the loss of the feeling of community. Both parents working, birth control, introspection and yes the desire to be accepted by others. As Catholics we were on the outside of the mainstream and seen as backward by many.

Lastly we were trained from infancy to respect and follow what the priest, bishops and Pope told us to do. So most of us (IMHO) just did as we were told and never even thought we could challenge those in charge.

Our children now want the roots that were pulled out from under many of us and seem to be tending toward a more traditional life style. Those that embraced the change are digging their heals in and fighting this trend. Sad to say I believe we are looking at a time of turmoil and possibly a split into two distinct groups and parishes. Both Catholic and true to Rome, one EF and the other OF.

 

[ChristopherM]

Spiller

I was not around at the time of change but I was raised by my semi-traditional Grandparents and mother - while they did not attend the traditional mass they kept some traditional devotions and always had a holy hour, i was lucky for the mostly orthodox Parish and school I attended in a small town.

It was when I came to the big city and went to “Catholic” High School did i see what the rest of the world was doing and I fell into it and feel like i lost out on a vocation from going to that school.

I digress…

The reason for the abuses is that the Missal of Paul VI was so loose with the rubrics compared to the 1962 M.R. In the 60/70’s I dont have to explain what the secular world was doing-

My Guess of what happened

1965- Mass to Venacular / other beginning changes
1969- New mass Introduced - Liturgy Changed
Onward - Since the law of lex orandi lex credendi holds true in combination with ecumenical “Spirits”, and the lack of rubrics, protestants and the era influenced the Priests and they took Liberties with the mass, and slowly it spread

on and on, obviously at some point you see some bishops take note of all of this, hence you get your Ottovani report and your SSPX Actions and so on…

Of course thats all my Opinion

 

[Spiller]

The whole world was changing so quickly. Many of us were in a form of “shell shock” and did not know whom to go to for help.

I tend to agree – plus there was no Internet or EWTN to help things. However it would seem that the great majority of the the Church’s clergy would have been against not the true reforms, but the deformations that often came with them. Why weren’t they?

Look at what we were living through. Our parents were the first generation that divorced and remarried without being shunned by society. With the spirit of VII changes it was easier for them and us to leave the “new” Catholic church and convince themselves that it was ok to do so. Since they had little or no knowledge of what true Protestants believed many just saw the NO as Protestant without the restrictions of Rome.

Has nothing to do with the Pauline Mass – has everything to do with all the nasty stuff that entered the Church that in no way was approved by VC2.

The family became unstable due to the mobility and the loss of the feeling of community. Both parents working, birth control, introspection and yes the desire to be accepted by others. As Catholics we were on the outside of the mainstream and seen as backward by many.

I have lived my entire life in California. Catholicism has ALWAYS been the mainstream around here so I cannot relate.

Lastly we were trained from infancy to respect and follow what the priest, bishops and Pope told us to do. So most of us (IMHO) just did as we were told and never even thought we could challenge those in charge.

OK, back to my question. Why didn’t the priests, bishops and the pope fight the abuses? Not the legitimate changes as directed by the Church but the abuses.

Our children now want the roots that were pulled out from under many of us and seem to be tending toward a more traditional life style. Those that embraced the change are digging their heals in and fighting this trend. Sad to say I believe we are looking at a time of turmoil and possibly a split into two distinct groups and parishes. Both Catholic and true to Rome, one EF and the other OF.

I’m still wondering why their parents did fight to retain said roots?

As far as distinct groups, it’s not going to happen. Separate parishes? Sure, if the Efers are willing to pay their way. To suggest a whole other rite or tradition? No way – no matter what your fantasy as it wouldn’t serve anyone and it would be extremely divisive.

 

[James_Miller]

We fought and fought and fought. But take 1965 it was not just the liturgy that was under attack. Add on moral theology. Add on Catholic schools and religion classes. Add on Scripture and Biblical interpretation. It is true that the Catholic laymen in the US were not prepared for such a massive sell out - the French were better prepared. But if any American bishop stood firm (eg Cardinal McIntyre vs IMH sisters or Cardinal O’Byle on birth control) the Vatican failed to back him up (read stabbed him in the back). Not 1 American or Canadian bishop stood firm,
The great Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid did. So he was retied earlier than other Irish bishops.
Aged Cardinals lost the vote in Conclaves. One French archbishop stood firm and one bishop from Brazil stood firm.

 

[HashemEchad]

Last year I read a book entitled, “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael Rose, which I got from a conservative book club I belong to.

It details how liberals infiltrated and tried to destroy the Catholic church, partly by ruining orthodox vocations.

 

[Spiller]

Last year I read a book entitled, “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael Rose, which I got from a conservative book club I belong to.

It details how liberals infiltrated and tried to destroy the Catholic church, partly by ruining orthodox vocations.

That book, while entertainingly salacious was by no means an authoritative work by a respected journalist. It was written by someone with a degree in bookeeping who found a way to make a buck.

 

[Spiller]

We fought and fought and fought. But take 1965 it was not just the liturgy that was under attack. Add on moral theology. Add on Catholic schools and religion classes. Add on Scripture and Biblical interpretation. It is true that the Catholic laymen in the US were not prepared for such a massive sell out - the French were better prepared. But if any American bishop stood firm (eg Cardinal McIntyre vs IMH sisters or Cardinal O’Byle on birth control) the Vatican failed to back him up (read stabbed him in the back). Not 1 American or Canadian bishop stood firm,
The great Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid did. So he was retied earlier than other Irish bishops.
Aged Cardinals lost the vote in Conclaves. One French archbishop stood firm and one bishop from Brazil stood firm.

So it was the Pope’s fault? I’m not asking this rhetorically. If the hierarchy supported the abuses (not the actual reforms but the abuses) then it’s game over, right?

 

[stmaria]

That book, while entertainingly salacious was by no means an authoritative work by a respected journalist. It was written by someone with a degree in bookeeping who found a way to make a buck.

The book is not a work of fiction. It does names names and devotes a chapter on a well respected priest Father Trigilio, who co hosts Web of Faith on EWTN.
A grade school classmate of mine went into the seminary in 1970 and left because of what is revealed in the book Good-bye Good Men. He was so distraught, with what he experienced in the seminary, that he left the Church and is now a Baptist.

 

[SemperFidelis]

So it was the Pope’s fault?

I would say largely, yes.