Why Didn't "Traditional Catholics" Stay & Fight?

[Spiller]

Over the past few years there has been a real push to stop liturgical and catechetical abuses in my parish. This has been accelerated greatly by a new bishop and a new pastor. Yet it’s still obvious – some (who would probably be mislabeled as “liberals” on this forum) who are entrenched somewhere in the mechanism of the Mass or catechetics at my parish have really circled their wagons and dug-in – preparing for a last stand if that’s what it takes. Few are fleeing. Thankfully with God’s help through our new bishop and pastor these people will in no way be insurmountable obstacles.

Why didn’t “Traditional Catholics” dig-in with the same resolve back in the mid/late 1960’s when a new string of abuses made their way into many of our parishes with the promulgation of the Pauline Mass? (Just so people don’t misunderstand, I am not talking about licit options within the Pauline Mass. I am talking about the abuses that made their way into parishes under the guise of the “spirit of vatican II.”)

It seems to me that most “Traditional Catholics” either stopped going to Mass or fled to other parishes. Why didn’t they stay in their home parishes and support their pastors – who I am sure largely rejected the abuses but were pressured into them by laypersons and some avant-guard clerics?

I really think the Church would be in better shape today in the USA if someone had fought actual abuses in the 1960’s and 1970’s with the same level of fortitude and determination show by those who wish to preserve them today. Where were the “Traditional Catholics?” Were they eagerly attending the Saturday night guitar Masses?

 

[bilop]

Over the past few years there has been a real push to stop liturgical and catechetical abuses in my parish. This has been accelerated greatly by a new bishop and a new pastor. Yet it’s still obvious – some (who would probably be mislabeled as “liberals” on this forum) who are entrenched somewhere in the mechanism of the Mass or catechetics at my parish have really circled their wagons and dug-in – preparing for a last stand if that’s what it takes. Few are fleeing. Thankfully with God’s help through our new bishop and pastor these people will in no way be insurmountable obstacles.

Why didn’t “Traditional Catholics” dig-in with the same resolve back in the mid/late 1960’s when a new string of abuses made their way into many of our parishes with the promulgation of the Pauline Mass? (Just so people don’t misunderstand, I am not talking about licit options within the Pauline Mass. I am talking about the abuses that made their way into parishes under the guise of the “spirit of vatican II.”)

It seems to me that most “Traditional Catholics” either stopped going to Mass or fled to other parishes. Why didn’t they stay in their home parishes and support their pastors – who I am sure largely rejected the abuses but were pressured into them by laypersons and some avant-guard clerics?

I really think the Church would be in better shape today in the USA if someone had fought actual abuses in the 1960’s and 1970’s with the same level of fortitude and determination show by those who wish to preserve them today. Where were the “Traditional Catholics?” Were they eagerly attending the Saturday night guitar Masses?

I think most of them stayed, and suffered in silence.

I wasn’t there, but my sense is there was NO tolerance for traditionalism at that time. The whole Church was swept away by the “spirit of the times”.

Remember, only somethimg like 8 of 80 theologians consulted agreed with Humanae Vitae (including Bishops Wotyla and Ratzinger).

Only a very strong Pope could have stopped the nonsense. Unfortunately Paul VI was not very strong. He realized the errors of the time (hence Humanae Vitae) and supposedly hated the new Mass that Bugnini and his committee came up with, but except in the direct attack on faith and moral (HV) didn’t have it in him to stand up to the modernists.

I truly believe that if Pope Paul had acted to personally rally the faithful, especially in retaining the old Mass (slightly modified as per VII) he could have avoided the chaos of the 1970-80s.

He didn’t have it in him, though.

It was only when the “fruits” of the reform became obvious, that tradition has begun to make a comeback.

We have JP II to thank for holding the fort (esp. on faith and morals) until the modernist threat spent itself, and now Benedict is leading the counter attack.

God Bless

 

[Spiller]

I think most of them stayed, and suffered in silence.

I agree – I do think many stayed and suffered in silence. I also know quite a few that simply left.

I wasn’t there, but my sense is there was NO tolerance for traditionalism at that time. The whole Church was swept away by the “spirit of the times”.

That I disagree with. Why I think MANY laypersons and SOME avant guard clergy did push the abuses, I think there were also plenty of clerics that were horrified by what was taking place.

Remember, only somethimg like 8 of 80 theologians consulted agreed with Humanae Vitae (including Bishops Wotyla and Ratzinger).

OK

Only a very strong Pope could have stopped the nonsense. Unfortunately Paul VI was not very strong. He realized the errors of the time (hence Humanae Vitae) and supposedly hated the new Mass that Bugnini and his committee came up with, but except in the direct attack on faith and moral (HV) didn’t have it in him to stand up to the modernists.

The Pauline Mass is not the problem – although some would like to suggest it it. The problem are the abuses that were introduced under the guise of the “spirit of vatican II.”

I truly believe that if Pope Paul had acted to personally rally the faithful, especially in retaining the old Mass (slightly modified as per VII) he could have avoided the chaos of the 1970-80s.

Yikes… :nope:

He didn’t have it in him, though.

A big problem was the very poor implementation of the Pauline Mass. The Holy See shares in this.

It was only when the “fruits” of the reform became obvious, that tradition has begun to make a comeback.

Not really. In fact many of the reforms we see today are merely adhering to what the Pauline Mass/VC2 Reforms instructed from the very beginning.

We have JP II to thank for holding the fort (esp. on faith and morals) until the modernist threat spent itself, and now Benedict is leading the counter attack.

OK.

God Bless

You too!

 

[eelpis]

Over the past few years there has been a real push to stop liturgical and catechetical abuses in my parish. This has been accelerated greatly by a new bishop and a new pastor. Yet it’s still obvious – some (who would probably be mislabeled as “liberals” on this forum) who are entrenched somewhere in the mechanism of the Mass or catechetics at my parish have really circled their wagons and dug-in – preparing for a last stand if that’s what it takes. Few are fleeing. Thankfully with God’s help through our new bishop and pastor these people will in no way be insurmountable obstacles.

Why didn’t “Traditional Catholics” dig-in with the same resolve back in the mid/late 1960’s when a new string of abuses made their way into many of our parishes with the promulgation of the Pauline Mass? (Just so people don’t misunderstand, I am not talking about licit options within the Pauline Mass. I am talking about the abuses that made their way into parishes under the guise of the “spirit of vatican II.”)

It seems to me that most “Traditional Catholics” either stopped going to Mass or fled to other parishes. Why didn’t they stay in their home parishes and support their pastors – who I am sure largely rejected the abuses but were pressured into them by laypersons and some avant-guard clerics?

I really think the Church would be in better shape today in the USA if someone had fought actual abuses in the 1960’s and 1970’s with the same level of fortitude and determination show by those who wish to preserve them today. Where were the “Traditional Catholics?” Were they eagerly attending the Saturday night guitar Masses?

Most stayed. Hopefully we will meet them one day in heaven.

All things are passing, only God remains the same.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Why didn’t “Traditional Catholics” dig-in with the same resolve back in the mid/late 1960’s when a new string of abuses made their way into many of our parishes with the promulgation of the Pauline Mass? (Just so people don’t misunderstand, I am not talking about licit options within the Pauline Mass. I am talking about the abuses that made their way into parishes under the guise of the “spirit of vatican II.”)

This is a question I have asked myself many times. There are a lot of “traditionalists” who say that they were dismayed by the changes they experienced in the aftermath of Vatican II, yet none of them appear to have done anything about it. These people may have prevented many of the changes had they stood together and fought for what they believed was right. Although, these people could have done nothing to change the minds of the Bishops who were firmly resolved to implement the changes. Ultimately, their protests wouldn’t have mattered if their bishop was unsympathetic to their requests.

However, most people probably believed that this is what the Council actually called for. Before the Internet, I doubt the average Catholic would have read the documents for themselves. If more people had read the documents for themselves, them I am sure that they would have questioned many of the changes as they were happening.

 

[rwoehmke]

In my parish, been here almost 50 years, a few people left and went to a nearby parish where the priest dug in and refused to change. By and large I think most people were happy with the NO and the changes. Maybe some were too stunned to react. I recall those times as a time of great hope and anticipation. Racism was under attack and we were not on the front lines, but very supportive. More than anything, I think Humane Vitae (sp) was a surprise to many lay people. They left, not because of the liturgical changes, but because they couldn’t live with the encyclical. There had been a sense of an increasing freedom from restraint and it was like someone giving the leash a hard jerk. I think there was actually an immense feeling that the focus on sin was gone that made it such a harsh reminder. I would not have called Paul VI a weak Pope, but I think he was quite taken aback by the backlash to his encyclical.

 

[eelpis]

In my parish, been here almost 50 years, a few people left and went to a nearby parish where the priest dug in and refused to change. By and large I think most people were happy with the NO and the changes. Maybe some were too stunned to react. I recall those times as a time of great hope and anticipation. Racism was under attack and we were not on the front lines, but very supportive. More than anything, I think Humane Vitae (sp) was a surprise to many lay people. They left, not because of the liturgical changes, but because they couldn’t live with the encyclical. There had been a sense of an increasing freedom from restraint and it was like someone giving the leash a hard jerk. I think there was actually an immense feeling that the focus on sin was gone that made it such a harsh reminder. I would not have called Paul VI a weak Pope, but I think he was quite taken aback by the backlash to his encyclical.

It was the last encyclical pope Paul VI ever wrote. Some say that he was a broken man after the responses to his reiterating the perennial doctrine of the Church. So sad that so few Catholics came to the support of the Holy Father in those hard times.

 

[bilop]

It was the last encyclical pope Paul VI ever wrote. Some say that he was a broken man after the responses to his reiterating the perennial doctrine of the Church. So sad that so few Catholics came to the support of the Holy Father in those hard times.

I think that’s because he didn’t call for their support.

I think the Mass was the key issue.

Once the Mass could change, peopl thougth everything was up for grabs.

His chance to stop the insanity was to reject the N.O. and write a Mass himself that was true to the documents of VII.

God Bless

 

[tee_eff_em]

It seems to me that most “Traditional Catholics” either stopped going to Mass or fled to other parishes. Why didn’t they stay in their home parishes and support their pastors –

who I am sure largely rejected the abuses

but were pressured into them by laypersons and some avant-guard clerics?

:twocents: I am not so sure about the highlighted bit.

If this doubt is well-founded, I believe coupling it with the traditional Catholic virtue of obedience to one’s pastor would go a long way to explaining why there would not have been so much “staying and fighting”.

(And: Agreed, there has been a lot of “suffering in silence” and “offering it up” – Also traditional virtues)

:twocents:
tee

 

[ProVobis]

Why didn’t “Traditional Catholics” dig-in with the same resolve back in the mid/late 1960’s when a new string of abuses made their way into many of our parishes with the promulgation of the Pauline Mass? (Just so people don’t misunderstand, I am not talking about licit options within the Pauline Mass. I am talking about the abuses that made their way into parishes under the guise of the “spirit of vatican II.”)

Seems to me the abuses came before the Pauline Mass. Way before. The Pauline Mass was an attempt to stabilize the Mass as so many revolutionary novelties had been introduced after 1962 or 1963. Vatican II documents were being misinterpreted; so much so that by 1967 or 1968, there were so many canons created out of thin air, no one could keep up with them. The whole thing was quite a shock to many. “Traditionalists,” if any, become much disorganized. Any attempts at organized efforts to go to the old ways became quickly suppressed.

There are probably far better accounts than what I’ve presented here, but know that the Pauline Mass or the Novus Ordo or the OF didn’t introduce abuses. If there were any abuses, they were carryovers, but the Pauline Mass proved that it couldn’t contain them either. We got what we got, abuses and all. With the passage of time, they simply just became tolerated, little by little.

 

[ethelzguy]

Seems to me the abuses came before the Pauline Mass. Way before. The Pauline Mass was an attempt to stabilize the Mass as so many revolutionary novelties had been introduced after 1962 or 1963. Vatican II documents were being misinterpreted; so much so that by 1967 or 1968, there were so many canons created out of thin air, no one could keep up with them. The whole thing was quite a shock to many. “Traditionalists,” if any, become much disorganized. Any attempts at organized efforts to go to the old ways became quickly suppressed.

There are probably far better accounts than what I’ve presented here, but know that the Pauline Mass or the Novus Ordo or the OF didn’t introduce abuses. If there were any abuses, they were carryovers, but the Pauline Mass proved that it couldn’t contain them either. We got what we got, abuses and all. With the passage of time, they simply just became tolerated, little by little.

This seems to match my recollections. 65-69 was something of a mish-mash. I always thought that it was the old Latin Mass, translated to English. But the altar was turned as was the priest, toward the people, and people started standing in line for Communion well before The First Sunday of Advent, 1969.

I’ve always felt that the Pauline Mass was a “tidying up” of what we experienced for the years immediately before. But I could be wrong, I have a lot more gray hair now than I did back then.

 

[LJN21]

I think its a combination of a lot of things touched on here.

A large number of people really thought thats what was intended by VII. Sure, people could have read the documents of VII, but why should they bother reading it themselves when they’re being told what it means by their representative of the Church. Some embraced it, some didn’t like it, some were out right hurt buy it, and some flat out left the Church over it.

As far as stay and fighting, that would be hard (read: next to impossible) when the Bishop is supporting the abuses.

This dioceses was a hot bed for innovation. It got really, really bad. Some tried to battle and were told to shut up and go away. Most of those ended up in SSPX or paying rogue priests to say “mass” for them. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending that, I’m just thankful I didn’t have to decided between an ad lib mass or a underground TLM.) Some just submarined until things started to improve and they were given the ability to deal with the abuses instead of just being told “Didn’t you know we had a Second Vatican Council.”

 

[fatima1917]

We stayed and fought. Otherwise you youngsters wouldn’t even have a church to go to today. We were crucified and hung out to dry and nobody outside of the church knew about it. Try kneeling for communion back in 1980 and you will find out all about persecution.Try acting traditional during the mass in 1980 and you would have found out all about persecution. Be a women with a head covering in mass in 1980 and see the reception you would get. People had rocks thrown at them after mass. We were maligned, gossiped about, yelled at; generally hated. Aw yes 1975 to 1990 those were the years of the great persecution. Drip by drip of blood for our Lord.

We didn’t have anyone on our side; we were totally alone.

 

[Matt33]

I think a lot of Traditionalists did stay. I think there may be even more now than thier was then. But I think when the Church of God does something radical, it takes a while to be sorted out. I know that what keeps me in my pew is sheer obedience. Even if I view the situation as others being disobedient or if I long in my heart for more Traditional leanings I find The Lord in the Eucharist my Rock. Even if He is being handled wrongly or carelessly or even if some of the lucky few in this world who get to reciecieve Him do so in complete and utter obliviousness. Even if mankind liberal or Traditional, tries to implement his own will. God prevails and sustaians in His Church. While it is frustrating it is also not in vain. God will win out and we will be humbled in front of Him. We will answer for our generation but ultimately we just pray for God’s Mercy which he will be so generous with. As will he be eqaully Just with punishment with those who seek to undermine Him. ON BOTH SIDES:thumbsup:

 

[bilop]

Seems to me the abuses came before the Pauline Mass. Way before. The Pauline Mass was an attempt to stabilize the Mass as so many revolutionary novelties had been introduced after 1962 or 1963. Vatican II documents were being misinterpreted; so much so that by 1967 or 1968, there were so many canons created out of thin air, no one could keep up with them. The whole thing was quite a shock to many. “Traditionalists,” if any, become much disorganized. Any attempts at organized efforts to go to the old ways became quickly suppressed.

There are probably far better accounts than what I’ve presented here, but know that the Pauline Mass or the Novus Ordo or the OF didn’t introduce abuses. If there were any abuses, they were carryovers, but the Pauline Mass proved that it couldn’t contain them either. We got what we got, abuses and all. With the passage of time, they simply just became tolerated, little by little.

I think that’s right. The only way to stop the craziness would have been for the Pope to say Stop!. This is a disaster and we’re going back to the old Mass, with the threat of excommunication for any Bishop/Priest who defied him.

The Church would have lost a lot of people and priests (but that happened anyway), but I believe the vast majority of the laity would have rallied behind the Pope and supported him against the modernizing elements of the clergy and hierarchy. It would have been ugly, but we’d be in much better shape now.

God Bless

 

[Dempsey1919]

We stayed and fought. Otherwise you youngsters wouldn’t even have a church to go to today. We were crucified and hung out to dry and nobody outside of the church knew about it. Try kneeling for communion back in 1980 and you will find out all about persecution.Try acting traditional during the mass in 1980 and you would have found out all about persecution. Be a women with a head covering in mass in 1980 and see the reception you would get. People had rocks thrown at them after mass. We were maligned, gossiped about, yelled at; generally hated. Aw yes 1975 to 1990 those were the years of the great persecution. Drip by drip of blood for our Lord.

Nobody can deny that those who practiced traditional catholicism during the 1970’s and 80’s were persecuted, but I have never heard of anyone experiencing what you did.

Many bishops took it upon themselves to do things that were not mandated in Vatican II. They supressed the Tridentine Mass and claimed that it was abrogated. They destroyed ancient, historic Churches for no reason. They removed altar rails and installed side tabernacles instead. The religious stopped wearing the habit etc etc

To an outsider looking in, it would appear that the Church was creating a new religion. There was a complete rupture with tradition. There is a break in the timeline; what the Church looked like and did before the Council, and what the Church looked like and did after the Council.

However, we Catholics know that the faith can never change; we have the protection of the Holy Spirit. We know that the expressions of the faith changed drastically but that good will always prevail. The Church will always lead us to the truth which leads to salvation.

We have the current pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI to thank for the many great changes we are experiencing at this time. He is working hard to correct many of the mistakes.

This thread is all about the lack of action taken by traditionalists to prevent the mistakes that occured in the aftermath of the Council. Well, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the SSPX for it’s protection and promotion of the Tridentine Mass. While I could never condone this organisation’s disobedience in consecrating bishops, I can recognize that many of the great orders such as the FSSP and Christ the King owe their existance to the SSPX. Were it not for the SSPX, the EF and many other traditional practices would have perished.

Although I disagree with his stance on Vatican II and the continued schism of his successors, I thank Archbishop Lefebvre for his protection and promotion of a unique brand of spirituality that was on the verge of extinction.

 

[Spiller]

Most stayed. Hopefully we will meet them one day in heaven.

All things are passing, only God remains the same.

Not in these parts…

 

[Spiller]

This is a question I have asked myself many times. There are a lot of “traditionalists” who say that they were dismayed by the changes they experienced in the aftermath of Vatican II, yet none of them appear to have done anything about it. These people may have prevented many of the changes had they stood together and fought for what they believed was right. Although, these people could have done nothing to change the minds of the Bishops who were firmly resolved to implement the changes. Ultimately, their protests wouldn’t have mattered if their bishop was unsympathetic to their requests.

However, most people probably believed that this is what the Council actually called for. Before the Internet, I doubt the average Catholic would have read the documents for themselves. If more people had read the documents for themselves, them I am sure that they would have questioned many of the changes as they were happening.

And EWTN – GOOD Point!!

 

[scylla]

The answer to that can be seen in the response of the Bishops during the Anglican split.

How many Bishops stayed faithful to the Church? This was during a blatant all out rebellion against the Church? Now compare this to the abuses which happened, not as severe and many were brought about by misinformation. So what is a faithful Catholic to do when told to obey? There is no evident schism or rebellion, so what is a faithful Catholic to do?

Scylla

 

[Spiller]

I think that’s right. The only way to stop the craziness would have been for the Pope to say Stop!. This is a disaster and we’re going back to the old Mass, with the threat of excommunication for any Bishop/Priest who defied him.

The Church would have lost a lot of people and priests (but that happened anyway), but I believe the vast majority of the laity would have rallied behind the Pope and supported him against the modernizing elements of the clergy and hierarchy. It would have been ugly, but we’d be in much better shape now.

God Bless

NO WAY! That’s patently ridiculous. First, the old Mass wasn’t being celebrated with the vaunted reverence it typically enjoys today. Second you REALLY believe the Pope is going to threaten priests with excommunication for those bishops/priests that did not immediately go back to the Tridentine Mass? No way. Heck, why not just do that today for all liturgical abuses and all would be well, right? LOL!! That would would have made the Church and the Pope look moronic – not only for the ham-fisted threat but also for the flipping a u-turn.

In the end it was not the Pauline Mass that caused the problems – it was the poor implementation of the Pauline Mass and the abuse of vatican II.