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

[Brennan_Doherty]

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

So what are you saying, Spiller? That Jean Guitton wasn’t a good friend of Pope Paul VI’s? That Jean Guitton actually did not say what I quoted?

Here is a more lengthy quote along with the name and date of the original interview:

“The intention of Paul VI in the matter of the liturgy, in the matter of what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy so that it should approximate as closely as possible to the Protestant liturgy … with the Protestant Lord’s Supper… I can only repeat that Paul VI did all that he could to bring the Catholic Mass away from the tradition of the Council of Trent towards the Protestant Lord’s Supper. He was assisted by Archbishop Bugnini in particular, though Bugnini did not always enjoy the full confidence of Paul VI… The Mass of Paul VI is first and foremost a banquet, is it not? It lays heavy emphasis upon the aspect of taking part in a banquet, and much less upon the idea of sacrifice, ritual sacrifice in the presence of God, the priest only showing his back. So I do not think I am mistaken when I say that the intention of Paul VI, and the new liturgy which bears his name, was to ask the faithful to participate more in the Mass, to make more space for Scripture and less for what some call “magic,” but others call consecration, consubstantiation, transubstantiation and the Catholic Faith. In other words we see in Paul VI an ecumenical intention to wipe out or at least to correct or soften everything that is too Catholic in the Mass and to bring the Catholic Mass, again I say, as close as possible to the Calvinist liturgy.”

–Jean Guitton, French philosopher and close friend of Pope Paul VI, in the radio program “Ici Lumiere 101,” broadcasted by Radio- Courtoisie, Paris, December 19, 1993, translated by Adrian Davies in Latin Mass, Winter 1995 (IV, 1), pp. 10-11

 

[Ohwesty]

OK then how come “Traditional Catholics” did not take a stand in the 70’s or 80’s?

Take a stand? The Church isn’t democracy. Our bishops didn’t give us a choice on which Mass to attend, and any voices of dissent were promptly ignored or shouted down. But when the pews start emptying and the collection basket has fewer envelopes, that’s one way of taking a stand.

I’m not advocating that, just saying it happens.

• Westy

 

[Sepharad]

Someone once said that the TLM in pre-V2 times was not always said as reverently as one would assume. From what I have heard from older Catholics in my family, this seems to have been true.

So one good thing that has come out of the last 40 or so years, I’d think, is that no one takes the TLM for granted anymore, and with all the focus on it (which if you admit, you have groups like the old ORCM and the SSPX to thank for), I would think it is said with more reverence now, because the focus is on what you (almost) lost, and you don’t want to “lose” it again!

Perhaps it is, as St Augustine once said, “God does not permit evil to happen unless He sees He will bring good out of it.”

(And remember, not everything from before V2 was good. If I recall my history correctly, Teilhard de Chardin was a product of Catholicism from before V2!)

But now you have a chance to purify everything for your religious faith, and perhaps the liturgical abuses of the last 40 years has made people see that? Traditional Catholicism, in its externals, is a beautiful religious faith. It may not be for me, but for those to whom it gives solace and support, it should be maintained.

 

[LJN21]

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

Actually, veils and mantillas is a very new trend in the US for head coverings. If I remember right, it is of Spanish influence. Someone that lived in the era could correct me, but I believe form the up till the 60’s (Jakie Kennedy influence I think) the large majority of women did in fact wear hats, will when it wasn’t a piece of Kleenex - thats how legalistic it was some how a kleenex is better than not wearing one at all.

I understand the veil. I know that there is a argument to be made that the mandate to wear them during mass is still enforce. I also think it is pretty much dead last in the issue effect the Church today. Yeah, I know, there are some that get all uptight about the modesty of it or the humility of it… when people stop going to Sunday Mass in jeans, tank tops and mini skirts then come talk to me about out ward signs of modesty and humility. Honestly, I think you statement is self righteous. I know plenty of people (used to be one myself ) that wear veils and “understand them” its not all roses and sunshine.

Besides, you ever tried to wear a Mantilla trying to keep 3 little kids still and quite? I’d spend more time adjusting the darn thing than I do paying attention to the Mass, which is hard enough with before mentioned kids.

 

[SJP]

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.

Two things, firstly, you do owe them charity.

Secondly, I’ll give you credit for the second part of your post. Some Traditionalists seem to be under the impression that Tradition would have been lost forever were it not for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. I don’t see how one can make such a claim, it’s impossible to know what would have happened had the schism never taken palce. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger and other Traditionalists would have worked to restore the Mass and Tradition from inside the Church.

 

[LJN21]

Secondly, I’ll give you credit for the second part of your post. Some Traditionalists seem to be under the impression that Tradition would have been lost forever were it not for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. I don’t see how one can make such a claim, it’s impossible to know what would have happened had the schism never taken palce. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger and other Traditionalists would have worked to restore the Mass and Tradition from inside the Church.

I have to agree with that. SSPX weren’t the only people out there trying to foster Tradition, perhaps just the most vocal in their lack of charity toward Rome.

 

[KingAlfred]

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?

The '60s and '70s together constituted an era of overwhelming revolutionary agitation, if not ‘spiritualism’, worldwide. The Church experienced an infusion of that fiery blood in its veins as well. It produced V2, Liberation Theology, and a particularly radical variant of the latter, Ecumenical Marxism, which consisted of a military marriage between Communism and Catholic social activism in Latin America.

 

[bilop]

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.

Half the Church DID leave! Did you miss that part?

Mass attendance went from 75% to 25%. Ex-Catholics make up something like 10% of the U.S. population.

The modernists would have schismed; I don’t think they’re the “best and brightest”.

John and Jane Catholic would have stayed, and 75% of their children would be practicing Catholics today instead of 25%.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

The '60s and '70s together constituted an era of overwhelming revolutionary agitation, if not ‘spiritualism’, worldwide. The Church experienced an infusion of that fiery blood in its veins as well. It produced V2, Liberation Theology, and a particularly radical variant of the latter, Ecumenical Marxism, which consisted of a military marriage between Communism and Catholic social activism in Latin America.

That is VERY true. But the only way to deal with that sort of movement is staunch conservatism and absolute adherence to tradition. Once you try to accomodate that sort of movement, you’ve lost. You can’t be “half as revolutionary” as the revolutionaries.

Look at the Liberal/Democratic establishment in the U.S. They tried to accomodate the radicals and ended up losing control of academia, cultural institutions and their whole party to the radicals. They didn’t have the guts to face down their rebellious children. Mayor Daley was the only one who knew how to deal with revolutionaries.

God Bless

 

[Spiller]

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

He’d have to change books to the GIRM or CofC…

 

[Spiller]

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

I know very well what the Bible says about head coverings. I also know what the Church directs on the matter. I’m not in a position to know better than the Church – nor are you. To suggest one cannot understand the liturgy if they do not understand “headcoverings” is repulsively ignorant.

It’s also offensive – much like the feigned martyrdom of the person who brought-up the ridiculous matter of head coverings on an otherwise serious thread.

Finally, hats are VERY appropriate for a woman at Mass! Did you get that? VERY appropriate. “Veils or mantillas” were typically secondary – women kept them in their purses when they were not wearing hats.

If you’re going to pontificate about “headcoverings” at least take the time to learn a little history with respect to their place in the Church.

 

[Spiller]

Half the Church DID leave! Did you miss that part?

Mass attendance went from 75% to 25%. Ex-Catholics make up something like 10% of the U.S. population.

The modernists would have schismed; I don’t think they’re the “best and brightest”.

John and Jane Catholic would have stayed, and 75% of their children would be practicing Catholics today instead of 25%.

God Bless

I think the only ones that would have stayed were the one praying a perpetual series of novenas for the return of the maniple…

 

[Spiller]

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.

So the changes should have been formulated and implemented by those in the pews?

 

[Spiller]

So what are you saying, Spiller? That Jean Guitton wasn’t a good friend of Pope Paul VI’s? That Jean Guitton actually did not say what I quoted?

Here is a more lengthy quote along with the name and date of the original interview:

“The intention of Paul VI in the matter of the liturgy, in the matter of what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy so that it should approximate as closely as possible to the Protestant liturgy … with the Protestant Lord’s Supper… I can only repeat that Paul VI did all that he could to bring the Catholic Mass away from the tradition of the Council of Trent towards the Protestant Lord’s Supper. He was assisted by Archbishop Bugnini in particular, though Bugnini did not always enjoy the full confidence of Paul VI… The Mass of Paul VI is first and foremost a banquet, is it not? It lays heavy emphasis upon the aspect of taking part in a banquet, and much less upon the idea of sacrifice, ritual sacrifice in the presence of God, the priest only showing his back. So I do not think I am mistaken when I say that the intention of Paul VI, and the new liturgy which bears his name, was to ask the faithful to participate more in the Mass, to make more space for Scripture and less for what some call “magic,” but others call consecration, consubstantiation, transubstantiation and the Catholic Faith. In other words we see in Paul VI an ecumenical intention to wipe out or at least to correct or soften everything that is too Catholic in the Mass and to bring the Catholic Mass, again I say, as close as possible to the Calvinist liturgy.”

–Jean Guitton, French philosopher and close friend of Pope Paul VI, in the radio program “Ici Lumiere 101,” broadcasted by Radio- Courtoisie, Paris, December 19, 1993, translated by Adrian Davies in Latin Mass, Winter 1995 (IV, 1), pp. 10-11

Precisely what I typed. That quote (real or not) is nothing more than whack-job conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[Spiller]

Take a stand? The Church isn’t democracy. Our bishops didn’t give us a choice on which Mass to attend, and any voices of dissent were promptly ignored or shouted down. But when the pews start emptying and the collection basket has fewer envelopes, that’s one way of taking a stand.

I’m not advocating that, just saying it happens.

• Westy

Oh? Then how come the voices opposing “Traditional Catholics” have been heard even though their voices typically dissent from Church teachings/instructions?

 

[Spiller]

The '60s and '70s together constituted an era of overwhelming revolutionary agitation, if not ‘spiritualism’, worldwide. The Church experienced an infusion of that fiery blood in its veins as well. It produced V2, Liberation Theology, and a particularly radical variant of the latter, Ecumenical Marxism, which consisted of a military marriage between Communism and Catholic social activism in Latin America.

Lotta truth there…

 

[palmas85]

Two things, firstly, you do owe them charity.

Secondly, I’ll give you credit for the second part of your post. Some Traditionalists seem to be under the impression that Tradition would have been lost forever were it not for the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. I don’t see how one can make such a claim, it’s impossible to know what would have happened had the schism never taken palce.

** **.

You must be really naive to believe that one. I can guarantee you the only reason for the Indult being issued in the first place was to try to woo the SSPX and others back into the fold. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the desires of the faithful, lovingly attached to a previous form of the Liturgy. If that had really been the case do you think that they would have stopped the Mass completely the way the did? Also so you think there would have been the outright refusal of many Bishops to even allow the Traditional Mass in their Diocese had the desires of the faithful been of any importance?. No, it was a carrot to win back the Archbishop and his followers among others.

The reason now is quite different. The Holy Father has seen the devastation that has taken place in great part due to the loss of reverence in The Mass. The loss of faith, the loss of belief in the Real Presence, etc etc. He now realizes, I think, that the innovators, the champions of false ecumenism and the others with their agendas hijacked the process and he is trying, gingerly and patiently, to reverse it.

The Traditional Mass would have been lost were it not for the Archbishop and others like him. You can say what what you want and think what you want about the man, but that is the truth.

And even if the Holy Father had decided now, forty some odd years later to bring the Mass back, without ever having had the Indult, pray tell, who would celebrate it? We hear repeatedly on these forums that so few Priests know Latin, and are equally apparently unable to learn it, that it would take years, no make that generations, to learn how to properly celebrate the Traditional Mass. Without the SSPX and the other various groups that grew up as a direct result of the SSPX there would be only a handful of Priests left who would even have a memory of the Traditional Mass.

I don’t in any way support the SSPX for their disobedience, but I do support them in keeping the Traditional Mass alive when the more progressive among us wanted it dead, buried and forgotten.

Just as many on this forum wish for today.

 

[palmas85]

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…

I can only speak from my experience, and that was we were raised to obey the Priests, to obey the Sisters, to obey the Bishop and above all obey the Holy Father. We didn’t fight back because that was unthinkable. We felt that they had our best interests at heart and would not lead us astray, away from the faith. If the Priest said during his homily. as I heard one say, that Marian devotions were a thing of the past and Rome did not want us engaging in them, well that was what Rome said. We trusted and we believed and above all we obeyed. We were sheep, being led by who were thought were our shepeards. It was a different world back then.

But as time went by and the abuses and innovations continued and multiplied more and more of us saw that there was a definite agenda among certain groups within the Church. So we started to take a stand. My own personal stand began when the sisters who were celebrating the Mass, while the Priest sat in the pews with a group of illegal aliens in hoods, consecrated Corn Tortillas and said that since they were the food of the people, that was what we would receive as Holy Communion from now on. Those of us who were worthy that is. Being in the employ of the US government at that time, I was not worthy, nor were any of the others who worked for the government in any capacity nor any of their families. We were asked to leave as our continued presence was an insult to Christ. who was present principally in those concealed under the hoods…

So I stood up and started speaking out. And I haven’t stopped. Maybe I was too late, maybe not. Maybe had more of us stood up in 65 and said NO, we’re not going to put up with this nonsense, it would have stopped them, Maybe, who knows at this point.

At least now Rome has seen just how dangerously close the Church, particularly in the west, came to self disintegration. So we’ll see what happens now. Maybe just maybe, the innovators have had their day, maybe those with agendas have petered out and disappeared. Maybe we can get the Church back on track again.

 

[Spiller]

I can only speak from my experience, and that was we were raised to obey the Priests, to obey the Sisters, to obey the Bishop and above all obey the Holy Father. We didn’t fight back because that was unthinkable. We felt that they had our best interests at heart and would not lead us astray, away from the faith. If the Priest said during his homily. as I heard one say, that Marian devotions were a thing of the past and Rome did not want us engaging in them, well that was what Rome said. We trusted and we believed and above all we obeyed. We were sheep, being led by who were thought were our shepeards. It was a different world back then.

But as time went by and the abuses and innovations continued and multiplied more and more of us saw that there was a definite agenda among certain groups within the Church. So we started to take a stand. My own personal stand began when the sisters who were celebrating the Mass, while the Priest sat in the pews with a group of illegal aliens in hoods, consecrated Corn Tortillas and said that since they were the food of the people, that was what we would receive as Holy Communion from now on. Those of us who were worthy that is. Being in the employ of the US government at that time, I was not worthy, nor were any of the others who worked for the government in any capacity nor any of their families. We were asked to leave as our continued presence was an insult to Christ. who was present principally in those concealed under the hoods…

So I stood up and started speaking out. And I haven’t stopped. Maybe I was too late, maybe not. Maybe had more of us stood up in 65 and said NO, we’re not going to put up with this nonsense, it would have stopped them, Maybe, who knows at this point.

At least now Rome has seen just how dangerously close the Church, particularly in the west, came to self disintegration. So we’ll see what happens now. Maybe just maybe, the innovators have had their day, maybe those with agendas have petered out and disappeared. Maybe we can get the Church back on track again.

Where was every other “Traditionalist?” Or regular Catholic for that matter? I read these stories and I cannot help but wonder if they are hyperbole? That sorta garbage would have created a problem the bishop could not overlook in my parish – today or even back in the day. Not sure why it was allowed in your parish.

The Church didn’t come close to disintegrating. The garbage the Church has endured over the past 40-50 years is fairly trivial compared to what She has endured in centuries past. God promised She would not disintegrate:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Where was every other “Traditionalist?” Or regular Catholic for that matter? I read these stories and I cannot help but wonder if they are hyperbole? That sorta garbage would have created a problem the bishop could not overlook in my parish – today or even back in the day. Not sure why it was allowed in your parish.

Why do you not answer your own question? Where were *you *when this “new string of abuses” entered your parish of generation on generation?

And if you were not there, or were too young (“not there” in any meaningful sense), how can you question the recollections and attitudes of those who were?

tee