Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Pre and Post-Conciliar Catholicism: A Chasm, Not a Rift

Holy Name Brooklyn before-tile
Holy Name Parish, Brooklyn. Top Left: Original; Top-Right and Bottom-Left: after wreckovation; Bottom-Right: Restored.

 

It is difficult to adequately describe (to those unfamiliar with anything but the present Catholic experience) the vast difference between the way the Church did almost everything before and after the Second Vatican Council. If the liturgy marks the most obvious change to the life of the Church, there are dozens of other, less apparent changes that go along with it – changes which would make a Catholic in 1914 and one in 2014 feel very alienated and confused if they were to step into a time machine and switch places. Their entire experience of the Church from her worship and sacraments to her art, architecture, music, devotions, blessings, and more would feel, especially at first, like an almost entirely different religion.

I have had a taste of this, because I experienced this when I discovered the Church’s traditions as a young man. At first, my resistance to them was very high. They didn’t even feel Catholic to me. They were something entirely foreign. Having bridged the gap, I’m left realizing what a tectonic shift the Church experienced in the 1960s. A shift that we are still feeling the aftershocks from today.

Yesterday, in  response to a comment on one of our articles, I sought to express something that comes up again and again in discussions of the forms of the liturgy, as well as pre and post-conciliar Catholicism. I would like to share this (slightly modified version) with you, because I think it is one of the better and more succinct explanations of this phenomenon I have cobbled together thus far:

 

I believe that the Traditional Latin Mass is the Roman Rite par excellence. There are many reasons for this, and we rehash them here all the time. A glance at Elliot Bougis’ post on Orwellian Liturgical Reform points to some of the larger questions, particularly as pertains to the semiotics of liturgy.

Of course, there have been many books written on the topic. One of the better books from the perspective of aesthetics is Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness, which looks at the anthropology of worship and the way aesthetics and outward signs impact subjective belief.

Liturgy should primarily be focused on honoring God in a way that is pleasing to Him. After all, there is a reason why Cain’s sacrifice was not pleasing to God, despite the fact that it was quite literally the fruit of his divinely assigned labors. It was not a question of the intrinsic nature of the sacrifice that was deficient, but the extrinsic – which was indicative of Cain’s own intrinsic disposition towards God. This is one of the greatest arguments against, as Cdl. Ratzinger called the Novus Ordo, “banal…fabricated liturgy” vs. a liturgy developed through the insight of and long development by the saints. The Gregorian Rite is far older than the council of Trent, and some liturgical scholars have argued cogently that the Roman canon is the oldest of all, including the venerable Eastern rites.

Antiquity alone, of course, does not guarantee that a thing is better, but immemorial custom (as opposed to mere age) helps affirm that this is so, because it has stood the test of time and the judgment (and nourishment) of the pious. In his encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII warned against “senseless antiquarianism” and further admonished:

[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Mass is only secondarily concerned with the preferences and tastes of the faithful, but if it is true that our liturgy is made to offer the spotless victim TO God, the oblation happens (and the Mass itself is designed) on our behalf. Insofar as we are called to assist at Mass and offer the participation of heart and mind, it behooves us to have liturgy that draws us into the sacred mystery, rather than keeping us confronted with the presence and personality of our fellow men – including the priest.

The Novus Ordo was designed as an ecumenical gesture; it diminishes or eliminates the sacred truths and the rich symbolism that were once dripping from every prayer and gesture of the Catholic Mass. It strips away repetition in the name of eliminating what is “useless” and forgets the pedagogical value of reinforcement and the numerical significance of certain repeated prayers. It weakens rubrics such that improvisation is par for the course; that abuses are easily made the norm; that reverent liturgy becomes simply one option among many.

But there’s far more to the updated ecclesiology than just a re-oriented liturgy that horizontalizes what should be made vertical and makes anthropocentric what should be Christocentric. There are the updated rites of blessings, which remove the power of many sacramentals; there are the updated sacraments, including a baptism which no longer features exorcisms as a ward against the power of the devil through original sin; there is the updated rite of exorcism, which few exorcists in the field feel comfortable using insofar as it handicaps their ability to invoke the Church’s authority against common causes of possession; there is the change in ecumenism, which assumes a quasi-syncretistic attitude, a religious indifferentism that dampens missionary spirit and zeal for the conversion of souls to the true faith; there is a shift in political philosophy and eschatology, such that Christ’s Kingship has been made a Kingship over hearts and over Heaven and not a temporal Kingship which governs just nations who pay it homage; and the taint of the Balthasarian fantasy that Hell is empty leads us to canonize every departed soul before the body is even cold.

We have lost the sensus Catholicus. We have given up on our belief in the devil and his minions and their relentless attacks to destroy souls. We have given up on liturgy that inspires us to fall down and worship before the majesty of God. We have given up on sacred art, architecture, music, and the Catholic intellectual life. We have given up on faith as a higher calling, one that challenges and forces us to go out like the disciples and preach the Gospel to all nations, instead feeling as though everyone is more or less on the same journey and fine where they are.

It cannot stand. It will not work. Once we have lost what makes us Catholic, we have lost everything.

The Traditional Latin Mass alone is not a silver bullet, but it is one of the most potent safeguards of the faith. The Novus Ordo, I’m afraid, has been tried and found wanting. Catholics have abandoned the faith en masse since its inception, and that of the entire post-conciliar experiment. Going back to liturgy that worked, that was reverent, that was universal – it’s merely a first and important step towards a larger restoration of the faith. A faith that appeals to the world, that attracts it, that indicts it not with anger and condemnation but with fearsome love and a call to repentance.

The Church has never been perfect, nor will she be until the end of days. But She had power once that was squandered. She had truth that the world desperately needed and still needs. She had the cross, the sacrifice of Calvary, the angels and the saints, and the fear of the Lord.

She had the exclusive claim that outside her gates, there is no salvation.

This matters more today than perhaps it ever has. Because the world has fallen so far from where it should be. We must first honor God in all that we do. Then, we must conform our minds and hearts to Him.

Everything else follows.

41 thoughts on “Pre and Post-Conciliar Catholicism: A Chasm, Not a Rift”

  1. The Traditional Latin Mass for me is the Pearl of Great Price. It is this treasure from our Catholic history that is ancient yet is also ever new. Yes, it does take some getting use to and you might feel really out of place for the first couple of times you attend (I did!) however when you try to attend weekly, you will see that it will become your best friend and your greatest joy in this valley of tears.

    Plus, it has been created and guided by the Holy Ghost for over 2000 years! What a wonderful source of holiness and consolation that will take us by the hands into our heavenly abodes!

    Reply
  2. I am with you on this one. My brother and I traveled this fall and visited a number of churches. Among the beautiful pro-conciliar churches were the Basilica of St. Louis in St. Louis, St. Josaphat and Holy Hill in Wisconsin. And then we also were at some wreckovated and newer churches such as at the Shrine of Our Lady of the Snows. I commented to my brother that we can see the difference in the beauty and uplifting of the older unwrecked churches and the newer sterile ones that do not uplift the soul. The same goes in many cases for the liturgy. The prayers of the Vetus Ordo are marvelous and the prayers of the Novus Ordo–which prayers will it be?–are less so. Last Sunday the priest told us we should be lifting our hands at the Our Father and should receive communion in the hand so as to ‘touch Jesus’. Shades of 1980~! I will touch Jesus with my tongue, thank you. The experiments have been disasterous but still so many want to continue riding the dead horse.

    Reply
  3. Great job, as usual, Steve. I agree with you wholeheartedly that liturgy has a profound influence on the faith of the individuals experiencing it. As you quote Mosebach: “…aesthetics and outward signs [do have an] impact on subjective belief” (brackets mine). Quite true.

    I myself have experienced a kind of interior revulsion, even frequently, while attending daily mass at different parishes in our city. Forgive me, but it is all just so effeminate and weak and personality-based. The Catholic liturgy, as it is typically celebrated today, is indeed counter-productive. As you say, “It will not work”. It drives people (and I would say men in particular) away from the church and from the Mass because it focuses too much on the congregants, and even the priest, and not enough on God and – hello – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself, the “re-Presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary”. As it is normally celebrated today, sadly, the liturgy of the Catholic mass is insipid and off-putting. It simply does not inspire a deep, reverent, fervent faith in God and in the Eucharist. Thanks to “the spirit of Vatican II” crowd, what should absolutely be the “root and center” of every Catholic’s interior life, to quote St. Josemaria Escriva, has become an afterthought or a duty.

    In my personal opinion, I would love to see the church return to the pre-Vatican II Traditional Latin Mass. To my mind, that Mass is the true form of the Holy Sacrifice and the one that is both most pleasing to God and most beneficial to the faithful.

    Having said all that…I would like to share another idea briefly, based on many years of personal experience with the apostolates of The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei. And this idea is simply that the problem may not be the Novus Ordo form of the Mass as such. Let me explain. In centers of Opus Dei (and in parishes administered by priests of the Prelature) they do not celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, it’s true. BUT the Mass is celebrated with the UTMOST solemnity and dignity and definitely DOES lead those present to a deep reverence for and love of the Holy Eucharist. It is Novus Ordo, but it is Novus Ordo done right. First, the oratory or chapel or church is beautifully designed and presented. Very traditional look and feel, from stained glass, to statues, to icons, to crucifixes, to priestly vestments, to incense, to traditional music and hymns, to the exquisite altar and reredos and altar linens, and to what is typically an astoundingly beautiful tabernacle…everything is just done very very well. In fact, quite often the Mass is offered entirely in Latin, including the readings. Novus Ordo, but in Latin. Many people do not even know that that is a possibility. The priest can certainly follow the Novus Ordo AND offer the Mass entirely in Latin. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Finally, I do believe that form influences faith, but I also believe that faith influences form. What do I mean by this? Well, in my opinion, a key ingredient to a Mass that is entirely pleasing to God and edifying to the faithful is…the personal holiness and fervent devotion of the priest who is offering the Mass. Let me explain. What I experienced personally at hundreds of Masses offered by priests of Opus Dei was a priest who was CLEARLY and without any doubt…IN LOVE WITH JESUS CHRIST IN THE TABERNACLE. From the first “In nomine Patris…” to “Ite, Missa Est”…that priest was utterly lost in devotion to Christ in the Eucharist. He clearly loved God and loved Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And it showed. It showed in every gesture he made and in every word he spoke (and didn’t speak). The priests of the Prelature are not “up there” on the altar to entertain the people with antics and feel-good stupidities. They are there, at the foot of the Cross, re-Presenting Christ’s Holy Sacrifice. Period. No play puppets and one-liners here, Fr. Nice and Popular.

    So, what’s the point? The point is twofold. First, perhaps the reason why modern Catholic Masses are so insipid is precisely because they are being “conducted” by priests who care a lot more about being witty and “welcoming” than they do about being devoted to Christ in the Eucharist. That sounds harsh (and I personally am just a sinner who doesn’t need to be judging the devotion or faith of anybody in particular, I get that). But perhaps, just perhaps, the form is presented in the way it is because of the faith and formation, or lack thereof, of the minister offering it. Just a thought. Second, if the Novus Ordo is offered with all the reverence and solemnity and dignity that the Mass is meant to possess, it CAN be non-revolting. Smile. But seriously: if the Mass, even following the Novus Ordo, is offered very reverently and in a truly appropriate setting, it CAN be beautiful and edifying and attractive. And I know this for a fact because I experienced it myself first-hand on hundreds of occasions.

    Again, I personally think that the Traditional Latin Mass is the best form and would love to see the church return to it. Don’t get me wrong. It is better in SO many ways. But just a few ideas, perhaps, to share as food for thought about the Novus Ordo.

    And I apologize but I can’t resist telling one quick liturgist joke. I’m sure many have already heard it; forgive me. A Catholic priest is put in a small room with a bear, a lion, and a liturgist. He is given a gun with two bullets inside. Two gunshots are heard from within the room. The priest walks out with the lion and the bear at his side. Witnesses ask: “Father, what happened? You didn’t shoot the two wild animals?” He replies: “No, I shot the liturgist twice to make sure he was dead”. Smile. Have a great Thanksgiving.

    Reply
    • Or this one: What’s the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist.

      Seriously,thank you for sharing some well-articulated thoughts on the greatest thing this side of Heaven, the Catholic Mass.

      As a priest of 18 1/2 years who is deeply in love with Christ in the Eucharist, I must admit I didn’t realize how much my gregarious wittiness and desire to be seen as welcoming and friendly competed with that love for His Majesty as I offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass until I seriously began looking into learning and offering the Traditional Latin Mass. With God’s grace, that will happen soon. It will feel like having a First Mass for the second time.

      O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine, all praise and all thanksgiving, be every moment thine.

      Reply
      • Thank you for the reply. And don’t lose your wittiness, of course! You know very well how helpful that can indeed be at times. There is a time and a place for everything. Personally, I think there are probably many good and holy priests who have just never considered how much their demeanor and words on the altar can impact their congregation. And their good will is revealed precisely when they learn such a truth and change their behavior accordingly. I think that must please Our Lord tremendously. May God be with you at your “First Mass”.

        Reply
      • God bless you Father. It’s so different. The focus changes from us to Him. Mr. Skojec is right in saying the Novus Ordo can be beautiful if celebrated reverently. But earthly beauty is nothing compared to the sublime celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. I took my pastor to Rome with me about 15 years ago. In one of the basilicas, St. Mary Major, I think, priests were required to say the Traditional Latin Mass. My pastor was terrified. He had forgotten everything. A curate helped my pastor, step by step, throughout the entire liturgy. I could see my priest slowly gain confidence in his delivery as the mass proceeded. It was wonderful for him and us, too. Please let us know how it all goes!

        Reply
    • I’m old too. I went to way more TLMs before Vatican II than I did afterward. Before Vatican II the churches were full. But they were full of people of such weak attachment to the Church that they happily stopped going at the first opportunity. The priests who gave orthodox homilies in 1962 were spouting silly nonsense in 1968. Things looked better then because the problems were hidden. Whitewashed tombs. I like now better because things are as they seem. The priests ordained this year know the world disapproves and are faithful anyway. So many of the priests ordained in 1962 were totally unwilling to put up with any difficulty and left just as soon as the going got tough.

      Reply
  4. The Novus Ordo makes the pleasure of the people its worship, whereas the Traditional Latin Mass is for the worship of God.

    The current Passion the Church is undergoing is our test. Our Lord wants to see who is really faithful to the truth, who is the wheat and the chaff.

    The restoration will come. Our Lady has promised it. Until then, remain faithful to the True Faith.

    Reply
    • sorry, but the novus ordo do worship God, and is not for the pleasure of people, please don’t talk such biased bullshit!! Perhaps you don’t get out very much.

      Reply
      • Perhaps you do not know the origins of the Novus Ordo Mass. If the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass wasn’t broken and it wasn’t obviously, then it didn’t need to be “fixed” by inventing another Mass that panders to Protestants. I hope you have a Blessed Thanksgiving.

        Reply
      • Sorry, but the NO most certainly has been constructed and modified to suit the tastes of its audience. I have seen this again and again in a variety of parishes in my archdiocese.

        I’ve also encountered hostility by those like you who are terribly threatened by those of us willing to slay your sacred cows. The NO is valid and licit, and that’s about it. The graces potentially available to people attending are severely reduced because of the improper disposition of audiences more focused on their role in the Mass rather than the worship they supposedly came to perform.

        Try proposing any changes and suddenly the constituencies formed around the liturgical abuses too long ossified in their hearts go on the attack. The ensuing language reveals the truth as they insist on having what they “like” – as if what they like is the most important thing about Mass.

        Too bad, but those of us here DO get out to Mass – all too often – and what we see repeatedly supports our claims. Your rude, obnoxious, and offensive choice of language ironically reflects very poorly on your implied claim that your attendance at the NO is about worship.

        I think not. It’s obviously all about you., and so you’re busted.

        Reply
  5. “… changes which would make a Catholic in 1914 and one in 2014 feel very alienated and confused if they were to step into a time machine and switch places.”
    – I think that there would be some (many?) Catholics from 2014 who would feel comfortable and at home if they found themselves back in 1914. I can’t imagine any Catholic from 1914 feeling that way in 2014.

    Reply
  6. Great article, and this is true in many ways. Just look at the Jesuit missionaries who founded the missions in the new world around the 16th century. It was the beauty of music and the beauty of the liturgy (The Old Latin Liturgy) that converted the natives and gave them the grave to change their culture. Had the Church continued to support them and had the suppression of the Jesuits not happened who knows what grace we would have today from those Natives who were so musically inclined. The fact that the Old Rite and the New Rite are NOT equal needs to be talked about more.

    Reply
  7. I think this is a very shallow analysis. In 1963 we had the tradition Latin Mass and we had churches filled with people of such weak faith that they abandoned the Church as soon as the liberal media and liberal priests told them the Faith had changed. We had seminaries full of seminarians who were willing to abandon the Faith as soon as it became unfashionable. We have fewer seminarians now, but they make more faithful priests. In the 1890s Modernism started growing in the Church. By the 1960s the Modernists were strong enough that they thought they could take over. Blaming the crisis of faith of the 1960s on Vatican II is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. How could Vatican II weaken the formation of seminarians in the 1950s to such an extent that so many abandoned the Faith and the Church because of the World’s disapproval in the post-Vatican II environment? If you seek reliable guides to the 20th Century crisis of faith I’d recommend Philip Trower, James Hitchcock, Dietricht von Hildebrand and Cardinal Ratzinger.

    Reply
    • The seminaries began to empty out after Humanae Vitae. For years many seminarians were told by their superiors and bishops that the Vatican would eventually allow priests to marry. Ergo, priestly formations were deficient. Humanae Vitae reiterated long held doctrine. In the end, many priests who had no business being priests left the seminaries.

      Additionally, people in the 40s, 50s, and 60s found themselves a part of a Church they could no longer recognize. It was not only the Mass that was radically deformed, but also the Churches themselves were redesigned radically. Gone were altars, icons, confessionals; new Protestant hymns replaced old hymns. Younger priests did away with old practices such as processions, adoration, and rosary meetings. Middle Aged Catholics found themselves cut-off without life rafts. I see all of this up close as a young boy. Many middle aged Catholics didn’t leave the Church; they Church left them.

      Reply
      • A priest who graduated from a seminary in 1962 went to a 100% pre-Vatican II seminary. If the pre-Vatican II seminaries were so good how did the priests go wrong so fast? Theory 1 is your theory. Theory 2 is my theory. Theory 1: Pre-Vatican II seminaries were perfect in every way. They picked candidates the right way. They taught the faith the right way. They ensured the students had what they needed to live the faith before they were ordained. Then came post-Vatican II, so despite being chosen correctly and taught correctly and believing correctly, of course those priests of the Class of 1962 abandoned the faith and started teaching the silliest liberal nonsense the moment it became fashionable. No priest ever denies error if the error is fashionable. The pre Vatican II seminaries were perfect but of course the graduates abandoned the faith the second it became unfashionable. The perfect seminaries turned out students who were anxious to embrace heresy the first second it was said to be fashionable, because no priests ever stand firm in the faith when faced with opposition.

        I’d like to be more polite, more charitable, but I’m afraid I’m such a bad writer that I can’t get my message through unless I am very blunt. A very large part of the Class of 1962 abandoned the faith and taught liberal nonsense. A full seminary is NOT necessarily a healthy seminary. A seminary that turns out students who abandon the faith in the face of the slightest opposition is not a good seminary. In 1962 it would be reasonable to fight over this. You could have said things look good. I could have said things are sometimes worse than they appear. There might be an internal rot. Since 1972, there’s no reasonable basis for a dispute. A good seminary does not turn out priests who switch sides. A good seminary turns out priests who would rather die than abandon the faith. We know many, many member re of the Class of 1962 switched sides at the very first opportunity. Therefore people who look at the evidence know that the problem did not start with Vatican II. You have to ignore the evidence to think that the problem started with Vatican II.

        Theory 2. Even before Vatican II, in 1962 and before, the Church, ans especially the seminaries had a very bad Modernism problem.

        Reply
        • I certainly wouldn’t deny that there was a modernism problem before 1962. Pope St. Pius X wrote Pascendi in 1905. We see the influence of enlightenment thinking on the Church for over a century before that. The French Revolution manifested an external desecration of the faith and its structures in much the same way that the conciliar revolution of the 20th century did interiorly.

          These problems certainly don’t rise in a vacuum.

          So while it’s fair to say that things went bad so fast because the rot already existed (a theory I fully agree with), by pulling out all the safeguards and stops we lost much more than we would have otherwise. There’s something to be said for going through the motions, if the motions are pious. When we struggle with faith, we endure. “Fake it till you make it” if we want to get crass about it.

          It’s certainly possible that God allowed the conciliar reforms to exorcise the Church’s demons. To rip up the floorboards and let all the cockroaches out into the light so the whole thing could be gutted and rebuilt. I’ve often thought about this. Even if this is so, it doesn’t mean that what we are experiencing is desirable, any more than an amputation is desirable. Sometimes, you simply have to bear this sort of suffering so you can heal. To recognize that a person needs an amputation, though, is not to deny that it would have been better had he been able to be kept whole.

          Reply
          • I totally agree that our current situation is not desirable. This is a bad time in Church history. The heresy of Modernism flourishes in the Church. The Church’s war with Modernism has gone on for about 120 years, 70 years underground and 50 in the open. The war with Modernism makes everything the Church tries to do harder. So I don’t think times are good, but I do think it’s better when Modernism is fought in the open than when it grows in secret.
            I disagree with accepting Vatican II as Modernism’s crucial opportunity, although all Modernists say that. If Vatican II had not come along Modernism’s strength would have reached a point where it could have emerged into the open spontaneously. The Modernists thought that Vatican II gave them the chance to come out into the open and take over. They failed, of course, but if they prepared in secret for a longer time, they’d have been stronger when they emerged, and would have hurt the Church even more than they did as a result of their emergence in the 1960s.
            Since the Church is seriously infected with Modernism any upheaval, any change in Church management, causes the ideologues to be more open and try to take over. That’s why we’re having the current bout of increased conflict with Modernism.
            I know that Modernism will go down as another in the long list of heresies defeated by the Church, but I don’t know when its defeat is going to occur. I think that in the absence of some big miracles it will be with us for decades yet.
            It’s hard to tell when it is getting stronger and when it’s getting weaker, but I think history shows that it grows better in the dark. It’s my opinion that the biggest turning point in the battle with Modernism was Paul VI’s issuance of The Credo of the People of God, but we really don’t have the tools to evaluate the progress or reverses in large scale spiritual warfare.
            Liturgy is important. Improving liturgy will be a sign that the reform of the Church is progressing. Better respect toward the Blessed Sacrament will also be an important sign. But, I think, a young priest who comes to a parish in 2014 and says a reverent Novus Ordo is doing something positive on this front. A liberal priest in 1963 might still have been saying the TLM, and wouldn’t have started preaching outright heresy for two or three more years yet, but his tearing through the TLM in 18 minutes was a sign that despite the rubrics, and despite his professed obedience to the rubrics, the Church was in big, big trouble. We just didn’t know it yet.

          • Roger, you take for granted many things that you never experienced.
            I lived it. I can tell you the problem here in the States at least. Vatican II totally weakened the requirements for Catechism. Baltimore Catechism was dropped. At the same time, the US Supreme court ruled that the state didn’t have to pay for parochial schools. Once parents had to pay for an education, there was a mass exodus out of Catholic schools. My third grade class had 42 kids. My fourth grade class had 27.
            As for the 18 minute TLMs, they took place on side altars. The main low mass was not cut short. And why did the church fall so quickly? Because Obedience was was drummed into the heads of Catholics from birth. You’re looking at the whole thing through 2014 eyes.
            I was born in 1961, my mom in 1928 but her Uncle who was pastor of our parish was born in 1902, and her brother who became our Bishop was born in 1926. We weren’t your average “Pete in the Pew”. Through VII we had the inside scoop and trust me the problems in the Church were caused, not organic.

          • I’m an old man, older than you. I’m giving personal testimony here. A Sunday Mass with a sermon was often 40 minutes with a 15-20 minute sermon. I’d love to have contemporary records about daily Masses but 18 minutes was frequent. And why would an 18 minute Mass at a side altar be a good thing? I’m totally fine with “private” Masses. I hope our side altars are someday used for them again, but why shouldn’t a private Mass be said devoutly? It’s as much a Mass as one said in a full cathedral.
            Of course the problems in the Church were caused. They were caused by Modernist heretics. I’m sure that the Modernists said that Vatican II repealed the teachings of the Baltimore Catechism. They were not telling the truth, though. The US Supreme Court has done many bad things, but denying Catholic schools government money was not one of them. If the schools got state money the state would control them. The Wanderer opposed governemnt money for Catholic schools, and rightly so. I think it maintained that opposition into the 1960s.
            Good Catholics and good priests can work together to make schools affordable. It wasn’t done, but as you might say, it was “caused not organic.”
            If we had all kinds of faithful priests in 1962 why did so many abandon the faith in the next ten years, either abondoning the priesthood, or staying on the payroll but teaching heresy? Can anyone change large numbers of faithful Catholic priests into heretics over a five or ten year period? Orthodox Catholicism became unfashionable and then was publicly abandoned. Think of any faithful Catholic of your acquaintance, would that person leave the Church because the truth became unfashionable.

          • Your problem is that, you like many, take your personal experience as fact for everyone. Your experience may or may not be the experience of another, but in reality it is anecdotal.
            And as I said, obedience was pounded into us. The reason why so many Priests left was not because they were not faithful (honestly I find it amazing that one would read another’s heart) but because they signed up for one job and got a bait and switch to another. The role of “Priest” became everyone’s role. THAT is from a Bishop, not the experience of a layman.

          • You’ve got a good point here. I’ll think about this some more and see what I want to cut back on. My main point is that Vatican II does not empower Modernism, but that the Modernists in the Church falsely claimed it as an excuse for them to take over. They didn’t need Vatican II to demand control, though. Something else would have come along. They are willing to say “Because of x, the Church is liberal now” no matter what ‘x’ is. My second point is that they were so successful because they already had a great deal of control, especially in the seminaries. A modernist in charge of a seminary has no reason to ensure that the right men are recruited, the wrong men are sent away and the Catholic faith is really taught.

            It’s true that I seem uncharitable to the actual situation of a young priest in the “Spirit of Vatican II” years. My 2d point is that the seminaries did not select proper candidates nor did they properly equip them to deal with opposition. I think that’s conclusively proven. But what about the priests themselves, who are neither my first or second points, but whom Im speaking badly about in passing? How much blame should be assigned to the priests who switched sides? (I didn’t think what they should have done was one of my main points, but I wasn’t very nice to those men, either.) First I agree that a priest who left the ministry did something way better than a guy who stayed and joined the Modernists. Everybody’s different. We can all stand up to different pressures in different ways. Father Ciszek signed a false confession for the Communists. I don’t want to say that any particular priest has any culpability before God at all. I don’t want to say anything bad about any of them. I knew a man who in those days left the priesthood to get married. He stayed married of course, but he also came back to orthodox Catholicism, and was a wonderful and holy man. I’m very glad I had the opportunity to know him. He told me the story, and I certainly didn’t judge him, but he did not offer excuses or try to exculpate himself either. I bet I have worse sins in my life than he had in his.

            But, not speaking of subjective guilt, but objectively about what is right and what is wrong, what should a priest do when a bishop says to him: “The role of “Priest” became everyone’s role”? A graduate of a good seminary would know that this is a false statement. Only if you don’t understand the sacrament of Holy Orders could you believe that is true. In the secular world when you’re hired for one job and your boss lies to you and gives you another, quitting would be a good thing. But leaving the priesthood? If a priest had stayed there’s a good chance that he could have done the necessary job of a priest. Eventually things got better in most places. Maybe he could have somehow swung a job as a missionary. But putting that aside, was quitting the objectively right thing to do, even if it was understandable? Well, I could have married the wrong person. Someone could have pretended to be nice and showed her bad, selfish side only after the wedding. A bad marriage can make your life miserable. Should we just get divorced then, and marry someone else who will allow us to have a happy life?

          • The Lil’ Licit Liturgy must be destroyed and the Real Mass must supplant it and the Hierarchy must be purged of sodomites.

            Unless that is done, all talk of a restoration will be just idle chatter.

  8. “The Novus Ordo was designed as an ecumenical gesture; it
    diminishes or eliminates the sacred truths and the rich symbolism that
    were once dripping from every prayer and gesture of the Catholic Mass.
    It strips away repetition in the name of eliminating what is “useless”
    and forgets the pedagogical value of reinforcement and the numerical
    significance of certain repeated prayers. It weakens rubrics such that
    improvisation is par for the course; that abuses are easily made the
    norm; that reverent liturgy becomes simply one option among many.”

    Sounds like neo-Calvinism

    Reply
    • That’s precisely what Jean Guitton, close friend of Pope Paul VI, said:

      “The intention of 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 — but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord’s supper … there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or 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.”

      Reply
  9. Great essay as usual, Steve. And it doesn’t detract from that for me to raise just one small quibble:

    Pope Pius XII warned against “senseless antiquarianism…”

    Which is ironic since he himself engaged in a hefty helping of just that when he gutted and completely overhauled the entire Holy Week in 1951-55, all in the quest to restore what some reformers believed was an older, purer version of Holy Week – and in which Fr. Annibale Bugnini was instrumental. Indeed, as Bugnini himself later admitted, the precedent set that the most important week in the liturgical year could be radically reworked was instrumental to the larger project of the 1960’s.

    Which is another way of saying that the Missal of 1962, while it very much *is* recognizably the traditional Roman Rite (unlike the Novus Ordo), it is a damaged rite – Holy Week being only one of numerous changes wrought between 1951 and 1962. One hopes that part of our eventual liturgical restoration will take a hard look at *all* the “reforms” of the 20th century, and not just those after 1962.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...