FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What were the decades before the Council like?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Hi all,

I'm new to both here and traditional Catholicism, and I can't search the forums, so I apologize if this is a dead horse.

Because I am new, I don't exactly have a super-rosy view of the Church pre-Vatican II.  This is not to say I have a negative view of the Church either.  It's just neutral.

At my FSSP parish, if many or most parishes were like ours, with a beautiful High Mass on Sunday, great preaching, etc., I don't see a need for a Council, especially one with changes in liturgy. 

That said, I have seen things about quick, careless, mumbled Low Masses all day on Sundays being the norm before the Council.  Does anyone know if that's the case? 

If so, I imagine there was already a lot of rot in catechesis many decades before the Council as well. 

Is that picture close to accurate?  Were there any obvious problems that can honestly be said about the Church at the time?  Weakly devoted lay people, lukewarm faith, and so on?

Finally and a bit tangentially, could the NO and the general state of the Church actually be the "Great Chastisement"?

Thanks for humoring my curiosity on this.
To avoid being sucked into accepting Novus Ordo revisionist history that the Church pre-Vatican II was dead in every possible way, I suggest you hit the books. Start with Michael Davies, in particular the Liturgical Revolution series.
(11-25-2012, 12:30 AM)Tenmaru Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all,

I'm new to both here and traditional Catholicism, and I can't search the forums, so I apologize if this is a dead horse.

Because I am new, I don't exactly have a super-rosy view of the Church pre-Vatican II.  This is not to say I have a negative view of the Church either.  It's just neutral.

At my FSSP parish, if many or most parishes were like ours, with a beautiful High Mass on Sunday, great preaching, etc., I don't see a need for a Council, especially one with changes in liturgy. 

That said, I have seen things about quick, careless, mumbled Low Masses all day on Sundays being the norm before the Council.  Does anyone know if that's the case? 

If so, I imagine there was already a lot of rot in catechesis many decades before the Council as well. 

Is that picture close to accurate?  Were there any obvious problems that can honestly be said about the Church at the time?  Weakly devoted lay people, lukewarm faith, and so on?

Finally and a bit tangentially, could the NO and the general state of the Church actually be the "Great Chastisement"?

Thanks for humoring my curiosity on this.

In large parishes with many Masses daily as well as on Sundays, priests had to say Mass quickly to get them all said.  In Latin, the Mass can be said more quickly than in English.  Tim can tell you about that as he grew up in a large parish in Chicago in the 50's and 60's.

I don't think priests were careless in saying Mass. 

As for the mumbling, the priest was praying to God, not the people.  The faithful could follow along in their Missal (people owned Missals back then) or they could pray the Rosary or other prayers.


No, I don't think this was the case at all.  The Baltimore Catechism is great.  Rote learning is the basis for higher level learning, kids need more rote learning than they get today.  I think catechesis in Catholic schools, where religion was taught by sisters, brothers, or priests, was always better than CCD;  five hours a week beats 1 hour a week if you want kids to learn as much as possible.  Today, the religion teacher in a Catholic school may not even be Catholic.

>Weakly devoted lay people, lukewarm faith, and so on?   No, I don't think this was a real problem.  There will always be people of lukewarm faith, people going through spiritual dryness.

>Finally and a bit tangentially, could the NO and the general state of the Church actually be the >"Great Chastisement"?

Not even close IMO.  The Novus Ordo is the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the Mass you attend is the Extraordinary Form, according to the Pope.  Most Catholics assist at the Ordinary Form.  Why do you think an approved form of the Mass could be part of the Great Chastisement?  The Eastern Rites are also part of the Catholic Church, just as much as the Extraordinary Form or the Ordinary Form.

I'd suggest reading more about the Great Chastisement.  There's probably a section about it on the main Fish Eaters site.

Edit to add:

If you look at all the Church was come through in 2000 years, really go back and look at all the crises and quarrels, popes leaving Rome and living in Avignon for a good long time until St. Catherine of Siena encourage the Holy Father to return to and people determined to destroy it, then compare those to the state of the Church today, I think you'll conclude this is not the Great Chastisement.  But if you're still concerned, talk to your priest.



(11-25-2012, 02:58 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: [ -> ]To avoid being sucked into accepting Novus Ordo revisionist history that the Church pre-Vatican II was dead in every possible way, I suggest you hit the books. Start with Michael Davies, in particular the Liturgical Revolution series.

I've attended the Ordinary Form since 1988 (no Extraordinary Form available) and never heard any suggestion that the Church was "dead in every possible way" before Vatican II.  I don't think the people, in general, felt that way.

The truth is that thousands of Catholics (including thousands of priests, brothers, sisters, nuns), left the Church after the changes began to take place, and most haven't come back.  Obviously they didn't think the Church was dead before the Council or they would have favored changes.

The rest of the faithful accepted what they were told, as they always have when Rome has spoken.  They went along with the changes but they weren't delighted with them. We have a beautiful traditional church, built eighty years ago, never "wreckovated" as so many churches were.  We have regular Adoration and public recitation of the Rosary as well as seasonal devotions.

Those who have an EF parish should stay there and, please pray for those of us who don't.


I just popped in to say whoever started these rumors that pre-Council the Masses were filled with mumbled and rapidly said Masses, meaning there was pervasive abuse is in danger of losing there soul. Either this stuff comes from a liberal NO'er or we have a fifth column in tradom.  Were there bad priests ? Yes ! As many as today ? Not in any way !

Once again I'll say the parishes were HUGE compared to today. Monday through Saturday Masses started at 5:00 am on the half hour until 7:00 am. They were low Masses for those going to work. Men went to Mass before work and arrived on foot or by the bus, we still didn't have cars in every family, some didn't have tv's. At 7:00 am was the Mass before School until 8:00 am, and from then inclusive on the hour until 10:00 am, these all had organ and some chant but were still Low Masses.

Sunday was the same as far as Low Masses until 7:00 am then sung Masses until 12:00 noon. In the Chapel attached to the Church they started at 7:15 am until 12:15 am, these were low Masses and they were for those that had arrived late. Confessions during the week were offered every day during Mass in the Church, not the Chapel, and in the afternoon at 3:30 if I recall correctly. On Sunday's sporadically until 8:00 am as I recall.

I believe this lie of abuse stems from the fact that half of the people did not receive Communion.Today, it's an unwritten law everyone must receive. From this and the necessary speed with which the Low Masses were celebrated they take a quantam leap and condemn the pre-Concilar Church. I've heard this from both sides so go figure. This feeds into the notion in Tradom that the Church has always been filled with those that are going to Hell, and they are the few that might make it to Heaven, along with Saints and Martyrs, natch.

On the NO side it appears to come from a deep seated disdain for the TLM taught by Modernist and Progressive and Liberal priests. On the other it appears to come from a supposed intellectual superiority in Catechesis, and all things Catholic. The Fifties and early Sixties were not "golden", but compared to today they were holier. Just one comparison. We were all sinners just like today. The ones that had a broad on the side, and the ones that spent times with e-z women could be spotted and could be counted on both hands. Today it's pervasive and they are invisible to most. You gotta love the pill, doncha.

tim 
If you think logically, then you must realize that the rot was there pre-V2, otherwise how could V2 have even happened, right?  Modernists were obviously ensconced in the halls of power and basically seized the opportunity presented to them at the Council. 

Regardless of any feelings towards what some may have seen as defects in parish liturgical life before the Council, I'm sure they never imagined (they meaning ordinary pew sitters) that they would be given a Protestant "Simon says" table meal service as a replacement.
That's a fair point, Allan. They were there and hidden and never showed their heads. It was not pervasive, but Americanism was and is. It was the conluence of several things. The first was the boom after the war and then Vatican II and then the sexual revolution. Prosperity and social engineering started the migration of Catholics into the wilderness from the safety of Ghetto Parishes. Ghetto meaning local and Catholic. Success corrupts and modern Church was right there with the hand out. Vatican II caused many to leave and go nowhere. Those few priests which fought were persecuted and driven out or underground. Voila the Church of today founded by the Democrats and supported by the Republicans. What gets lost in the translation is Europe was nearly gone by 1960. Modernism was present from the 1800's. In America it didn't arrive until after Vatican II, though Americanism was present in the Bishops and about to be unleashed with the prosperity. Suburban sprawl is as much to blame for this as Vatican II, and the sexual revolution of their children.

Petty boxes on the hill side and they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look the same. Bakesfield California here we are !

tim 
If the older people around here (metro Detroit) are any indication, then Modernism or at least religious relativism was pervasive. I just find it hard to believe that this rot of moral and religious relativism and indifference happened in less than half a century. I think Modernism was going through the seminaries and colleges well at least starting with the 30's or 40's. The communists were infiltrating then too so it makes sense.
(11-25-2012, 12:30 AM)Tenmaru Wrote: [ -> ]....
At my FSSP parish, if many or most parishes were like ours, with a beautiful High Mass on Sunday, great preaching, etc., I don't see a need for a Council, especially one with changes in liturgy. 
......
Is that picture close to accurate?  Were there any obvious problems that can honestly be said about the Church at the time?  Weakly devoted lay people, lukewarm faith, and so on?

Finally and a bit tangentially, could the NO and the general state of the Church actually be the "Great Chastisement"?
To answer your questions, Tenmaru: That picture is a generalization. There was, is and will be good and evil, lukewarm and zealous men in the Church and in the priesthood until the end of time. There were problems indeed, multiple and multifaceted though. I don't think they deserved an ecumenical council of the Church though, and one bishop at the Council implied such saying that it was tempting the Holy Ghost to open a council that's not needed or something to that effect. As to your final question, yes, absolutely indeed, this is the spiritual part of the Chastisement. Next is the physical part if we don't learn from this part to amend our lives, do penance and reparation for our sins, and most importantly of all love God above all else.
The problem with judging that era through the lens of tradom today is myopic. Because of the current circunstances Tradom has distilled the Faith into being a perfect Catholic. This isn't necessary to obtain heaven. This is the divide between the SSPX and the FSSP. The FSSP is old school Catholic and the SSPX is authoritarian. If you could get in a time machine you'd see that words like "liberalism" as used today had no meaning then. There was an actual need for social justice and social programs then. Yes there were commies but they were sleepers until Vatican II, and Masons, and Modernists.

tim
Pages: 1 2 3