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

[bilop]

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.

I agree with your last point, it wasn’t the Pauline Mass, the chaos was well under way before that.

However, the Mass was the one issue Pope Paul could have used to “draw a line in the sand”. The Pope most certainly could have made anathema any celebration besides the 1962 Missal. And he could have excommunicated dissenters. I, for one, think he should excommunicate for the worst liturgical abuses today.

God Bless

 

[allhers]

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 was 8 years old and nobody really listened to what** I ** wanted.

 

[GerardSchlundt]

I can’t speak for most Catholics, I can only speak for me. We joined a parish (very small – the church ‘seated’ maybe 100-125 people. The initial impression was that it was going to be a ‘warm’ place where people knew each other. Later, I found that when many terrible abuses in the liturgy were taking place, the protests fell on deaf ears.

Initially it was just a terrible music ministry (Gaither is NOT Catholic, nor is it acceptable as music during Mass) then it went on to silliness, like removing the water from the fonts during lent. Then we noticed that the priest wasn’t purifying the ciborium and chalice. This of course is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuses.

When we talked to the priest during RCIA for my wife why certain things were done he simply said that the church was being stupid in that area, or justifying the abuses by using the exception to make the rule.

Why didn’t we fight? Because a short drive in the other direction took us to a much larger parish that actually uses a pipe organ, statues, Rosaries, and holy water. Also, we discovered the orthodox ministry by a Priest who was a member of the Fraternity. We also found that the 600 family church was much more inviting than the small one.

Why should we fight? Because the Priest is entrenched. A fight would have only exhausted us, possibly leaving us in worst spiritual shape than just leaving. Not only that, but we found a new parish that immediately opened its arms and invited us in…it was the best move we’ve ever made. Our drive time is now 30 minutes each way passing about a half dozen other parishes along the way. But I KNOW that what I hear in the homily each time is faithful and in full communion with the Holy C.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

If you are talking about traditionalists, and not just Catholics in general, they did fight. They have been fighting for forty years for the release of the Traditional Latin Mass from its de facto suppression. There is really no traditionalist in existence that I know that actually considers the New Mass to be on par with with the TLM. Hence they take issue with the Pauline Mass itself, not just the abuses (although most do consider it valid).

So you have Dietrich von Hildebrand giving Pope Paul VI “The Case for the Latin Mass” (see my signature link) in a private audience. You have Cardinal Ottaviani issuing “The Ottaviani Intervention” in an attempt to warn about the damage to the faithful the release of the New Mass might do along with its shortcomings. There was the founding of Una Voce for the promotion of the TLM. There were periodicals such as The Remnant. You had people like Michael Davies not only writing about the TLM and what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually said, but also writing about the fact that nowhere did Vatican II authorize or promote the ripping out of the altar rails or the stripping of the churches.

I think it is partially due to their fight that we now have the TLM in greater use today, and this also will hopefully bring about a greater adherence to the rubrics in the NO as well.

 

[Sepharad]

I got to witness this thing, through the eyes of a non-Catholic, since half my family is Catholic, and some of them were traditionally-minded.

My great aunt, Phyllis, was one of those who was devastated by ‘the changes’ when they came. She felt there was nothing she could do, so she stopped going to mass and just stayed home and prayed her rosary. But when I found a Tridentine Latin Mass for her to go to, she took two buses to get to them! (they were sponsored by an independent RC group at the time, called the ORCM). After they moved to Colorado (I think this was in the 1980s?), she switched to the SSPX, which by then had a Mass in her area.

My great uncle, Tony, died right around the time when the novus ordo was introduced… aunt Phyllis tried to have a TLM said for his funeral, but the local parish priest told her, “We don’t use that mass anymore”. So she buried him without any mass at all, which troubled her greatly (this was before I found the TLMs for her at the local Ramada Inn.)

I also had an aunt who was a nun…when the changes of V2 took place, her order got rid of their habit. This totally devastated her, and she developed clinical depression because of it. She was able to leave her order (not sure what the term for that is, someone help me out here, I’m not Catholic!)…and she always felt great grief over having to do that. She, too, found the TLM in the 1970s through my great aunt (for whom I located one to go to.)

Both of them felt very persecuted back in those days for sticking to what they believed. Many in the “newchurch” treated them horribly, even going so far as to imply that the traditional Catholics were not “true” Catholics…can you imagine!

This is one reason why I am very sympathetic to the Traditionalist Catholics, even though I realize many in their movement, sadly, tend toward negative feelings toward Jews.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

…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 just have one quibble, and that’s that I don’t think there’s any evidence that Pope Paul VI hated the New Mass. In fact, his good friend Jean Guitton had this to say:

“… the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy… there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass…” [CO, October 1994].

Guitton (19/12/93) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order Oct 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Way back in the early 60’s there was no internet. After years of Catholic schooling we respected ‘father’ and ‘sister’ and believed many of them were holier and more knowledgeable about the church than we were. We did what the priests said. After all, if the pope said it was ok, then we took his word for it.

Most of the laity didn’t read the documents. The GIRM wasn’t readily available. And actually a lot of innovation was permitted at that time. Some of the older people complained but where I lived there were no other masses to go to. We were required to go to mass so we went.

We had no tradition of the laity opposing the hierarchy over liturgical matters. There were no parish councils or advisory committees. How could we have ‘fought’?

I remember there being more arguments over Humanae Vitae than the form of the mass.

And, as another poster mentioned, the TLM wasn’t always said as reverently as traditionalists seem to think. For some parishioners, the speediest priest was the best. The 20 minute daily mass wasn’t uncommon. Altar boys weren’t all headed toward the priesthood. A kleenex bobby-pinned to one’s hair served as a head covering and hats were much more common than mantillas. In the '50’s I’d say only about half the congregation used missals. Many more people than today prayed the rosary as their prayer during mass. The bells alerted them to the consecration.

Although many people regretted the loss of Latin, I knew some older people who really liked that they could see the consecration. I thought that was awesome.

For a time mass was still celebrated in Latin, the priest’ back was sometimes to the people, and the people said their responses instead of the altar boys doing it alone. The priest spoke more audibly than previously. The people received standing but communion was on the tongue and the altar boys held the patens. I think this was probably between 1964-68. At that time I lived in Baltimore. Some parishes downtown still used the communion rail, others not. I thought that form of the mass was great and would not mind going back to it.

These are just my reminiscences of the 50’s and 60’s. I don’t think the laity drove the changes in the mass, we just accepted them regardless of personal feelings.

 

[bilop]

I just have one quibble, and that’s that I don’t think there’s any evidence that Pope Paul VI hated the New Mass. In fact, his good friend Jean Guitton had this to say:

“… the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy… there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass…” [CO, October 1994].

Guitton (19/12/93) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order Oct 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI.

I hope that’s not true.

My readings have led me to believe that Pope Paul tried to moderate some of the changes, but Bugnini and the commission talked him out of it.

God Bless

 

[Ohwesty]

Everything Claire said is correct. People did not question priests or bishops in the 50s and 60s. They did not question Councils and besides, the so-called “fruits” of Vatican II did not ripen until many years later. And we can debate over what are the true fruits of Vatican II as opposed to the happenings of the so-called “spirit” of Vatican II.

Yes, many faithful Catholics definitely stayed and suffered in silence. Some left for awhile but came back. This would include my mother who said “What Mass? It’s gone.” She didn’t recognize the new Mass. She felt lost.

Some of us stayed and tried to make a difference, but it’s not easy when you’re outnumbered by progressives on one hand, and the unconcerned on the other. Most people just went along with the changes. They can’t be blamed. Many preferred the changes and those born in 1970 and beyond don’t know anything BUT the Novus Ordo. There’s no reason to think they are less Catholic.

However…

The Moto Proprio has given more traditional-loving, diocesan Catholics permission to be bolder. More are gaining the courage to speak out, to kneel down, to receive on the tongue, to wear their veils, and to expect at the very least a Mass which offers the reverence and dignity befitting our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It’s only a matter of time. Everything runs it course. The Ordinary Form is here to stay, but the days of abuses and silly experiments are numbered.

• Westy

 

[Spiller]

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.

It’s actually about the apparent difference in resolve between “Traditional Catholics” and those they feel screwed things up. The pendulum is clearly swinging the other way now – in my parish/diocese at least and the level of resolve displayed by those resisting real reform is remarkable, albeit misplaced. IF they were in the right (and they clearly are not), there is no way the forces against them would prevail.

The sspx cut and ran into schism. I owe them zippo. Without their shenanigans, I think the EF would have been allowed long before it finally was.

 

[Spiller]

Everything Claire said is correct. People did not question priests or bishops in the 50s and 60s. They did not question Councils and besides, the so-called “fruits” of Vatican II did not ripen until many years later. And we can debate over what are the true fruits of Vatican II as opposed to the happenings of the so-called “spirit” of Vatican II.

Yes, many faithful Catholics definitely stayed and suffered in silence. Some left for awhile but came back. This would include my mother who said “What Mass? It’s gone.” She didn’t recognize the new Mass. She felt lost.

Some of us stayed and tried to make a difference, but it’s not easy when you’re outnumbered by progressives on one hand, and the unconcerned on the other. Most people just went along with the changes. They can’t be blamed. Many preferred the changes and those born in 1970 and beyond don’t know anything BUT the Novus Ordo. There’s no reason to think they are less Catholic.

However…

The Moto Proprio has given more traditional-loving, diocesan Catholics permission to be bolder. More are gaining the courage to speak out, to kneel down, to receive on the tongue, to wear their veils, and to expect at the very least a Mass which offers the reverence and dignity befitting our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It’s only a matter of time. Everything runs it course. The Ordinary Form is here to stay, but the days of abuses and silly experiments are numbered.

• Westy

OK then how come “Traditional Catholics” did not take a stand in the 70’s or 80’s? For the most part they still have taken a stand like many of their adversaries are today…

 

[Spiller]

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.

I couldn’t care less about head coverings – today or in 1980. I care about real liturgical abuses and real catechetical problems.

 

[Spiller]

I just have one quibble, and that’s that I don’t think there’s any evidence that Pope Paul VI hated the New Mass. In fact, his good friend Jean Guitton had this to say:

“… the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy… there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass…” [CO, October 1994].

Guitton (19/12/93) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order Oct 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI.

That’s whack-job conspiracy theory stuff. I am trying to be serious with this thread…

 

[Spiller]

I agree with your last point, it wasn’t the Pauline Mass, the chaos was well under way before that.

However, the Mass was the one issue Pope Paul could have used to “draw a line in the sand”. The Pope most certainly could have made anathema any celebration besides the 1962 Missal. And he could have excommunicated dissenters. I, for one, think he should excommunicate for the worst liturgical abuses today.

God Bless

Technically? Yep. Practically? No way. The Church would have appeared terribly confused and fickle. Half the Church would have left and what remained would have been fair from its best and brightest. It would have been a disaster. It would have brought the Church to her knees in a manner far more horrible than what we have endured the last 40 years.

IF the Pope truly had that sort of control, the best thing he could have demanded is that the rubrics of the Pauline Mass be followed to the letter. Had he been able to do that, the impact would have been stunning.

 

[saint_rafael]

I couldn’t care less about head coverings – today or in 1980. I care about real liturgical abuses and real catechetical problems.

Nice Catholic attitude

More of a Protestant mindset than anything else. No clue about anything remotely close to a serious Catholic culture.

If you don’t understand headcoverings, then you won’t understand serious liturgy.

 

[Spiller]

Nice Catholic attitude

More of a Protestant mindset than anything else. No clue about anything remotely close to a serious Catholic culture.

This is a serious thread – about liturgical abuses and failed catechetics.

It’s not about subordinate matters like feeling picked-upon if a woman wears a hat in church.

 

[I_Believe]

That’s whack-job conspiracy theory stuff. I am trying to be serious with this thread…

Ask that guy in your signature if he’s come across anything about headcoverings in that bible.

 

[saint_rafael]

This is a serious thread – about liturgical abuses and failed catechetics.

It’s not about subordinate matters like feeling picked-upon if a woman wears a hat in church.

If you don’t understand headcoverings, then you won’t understand serious liturgy.

Women don’t wear hats, they wear veils or mantillas.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16
The word of God

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

traditional catholics, like my grandparents, out of obedience followed what their pastors said. i talked to my grandmother recently who said she didn’t like the changes in the mass or thought we needed them. neither did my aunts. the reason why the liturgical reforms were so poorly implemented was because they came from the top down: a committee of liturgists created the banal fabrication known as the novus ordo. it wasn’t the product of organic growth, but a drastic substantial change.

 

[PrayforMallory]

traditional catholics, like my grandparents, out of obedience followed what their pastors said. i talked to my grandmother recently who said she didn’t like the changes in the mass or thought we needed them. neither did my aunts. the reason why the liturgical reforms were so poorly implemented was because they came from the top down: a committee of liturgists created the banal fabrication known as the novus ordo. it wasn’t the product of organic growth, but a drastic substantial change.

Yes. In the words of the Holy Father, writing as Cardinal Ratzinger:

“The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin… The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation… In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy… They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication…They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.”