I recognize that for many Catholics, but a small minority, the problems they experienced after the 1970 Roman Missal was promulgated wasn’t so much with the verncular Mass or its order—most orthodox Catholics, even if they preferred the Ancient Form of the Mass, obediently accepted the new.
Within the first couple of years, 1969 to about 1972, the new Mass was celebrated reverently, even with modern music, mostly of the folk music style.
But things quickly went south with priests experimenting with the new Mass and making changes in its rubrics and wording.
So, let me be clear, the first liturgical war wasn’t about the 1970 Roman Missal, but about how it was deformed by “spirit of Vatican II liturgists and priests.”
These were the issues and it wasn’t about returning to the 1962 Roman Missal:
1. Music applied to the Mass with the choir or ensemble next to the altar leading the congregation or performing seemed nonsensical and entertainment oriented in style—distracting.
2. Bells were removed from the Mass and incense as well and these were derided and pre-Vatican II and no longer needed and those who wanted these were derided as “bells and smells” Catholics!
3. With the bells gone, so to were the elevations at the Mass and any genuflections by the priest during the consecrations.
4. Girls were illicitly trained as altar boys, prior to approval
5. Eucharistic Ministers were employed, even prior to approval
6. Kneeling for Holy Communion was forbidden and those kneeling denied Holy Communion
7. Real bread was used with flaky crusts and debris from these scattered on carpets and floors and carelessly neglected. Those who complained were derided as “Crumb theology” Catholics.
8. The tabernacle was moved either to a side altar or outside the main part of the Church,often in a closet setting
9. Talking in the church before and after Mass was encouraged
10. Communion in the hand as well as the common chalice were done prior to these being approved.
11. Laity were self-communicating as Eucharistic Ministers simply held the ciborium and allowed the laity to take the Host from it with their own hands.
12. When too much Precious Blood was consecrated in large pitchers, what was left over was poured down the sacrarium.
13. Transubstantiation was considered an outdated terms as well as the sacrificial aspect of the Mass—a sacred meal was emphasized instead, a convivial get-liturgical meal get-together.
14. The priest was changing the words of the Mass including making up the Eucharistic Prayer.
16. Churches were stripped, reconfigured and made to look like Presbyterian churches and sanctuaries
17. Mass was celebrated casually, without proper vestments and in settings outside of the church, like outside, on the beach, on floors, no altar and improper elements, like coke and crackers, instead of bread and wine. Relevancy was the new battle cry.
18. Priest celebrants received Holy Communion last, after everyone else in the Church received, often did not distribute Holy Communion allowing only the laity to do so.
19. Communion Ministers came to the altar prior to the priest’s Communion and then all were given the Host at the same time and consumed together with the priest.
20. Since the sacrificial aspect of the Mass was not emphasized, the priest’s communion was not seen as completing the sacrifice, thus his communion was no different than anyone else’s.
Traditional Catholics were not pleading for the Ancient Mass, they were pleading for the 1970 Roman Missal properly celebrated. They were pleading for reverence and formality during Mass.
Their pleading was in vain and today we have those who prefer the Ancient Mass because they know what they will get and their religious beliefs and need for reverence won’t be offended there.
26 comments:
Yes, I remember those halcion days.
Our parish, at one Mass each Sunday, had everyone stand around the altar and self-communicate. One child dropped the chalice all over himself and ran away. Our nuns had their anniversary Mass and concelebrated with the priest in a homemade eucharistic prayer. Our school Mass had home made bread with cinnamon and and brown sugar in it. A lady eicharistic minister gave communion to kids saying, "Body of Christ, hun." We had a banner committee placing burlap and felt ugly banners all around the sanctuary with these themes: peace, love, joy, alleluia, felt fish symbols, etc. We had homemade ugly polyester badly cut vestments
with crooked cut crosses and even committe-cut miters for the bishop that were not even. Don't forget the liturgical dance team and kids carrying pom-poms down the aisle. Oh for the good ole days!
"Oh, yes, when we had the Smells and Bells we were much better Catholics!!! All of the Latin chant made our faith so strong not a single Catholic defected in the Protestant Reformation. All those ember days and rogation days and Doris Days meant that our belief in God being Father of all means we never-ever owned slaves (well, if we did we didn't mistreat them....much.) Having Double feasts and Greater Double Feasts and Double of the Second Class and Doubles of the First Class gave us such fortitude that no Sicilian Catholic ever dared join the Mafia. And having that tabernacle in the center of everything, well, that just gave us such confidence in the power of God that no Catholic ever committed bank fraud, abused a child, stole a car, committed adultery, .... Everything was just Hunky-Dory but then they went and changed the mass and everything fell apart.
Father McDonald, Cardinal Sarah was interviewed and this truly is a must read:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/08/for-record-cardinal-sarah-interview.html
Here is one of his more powerful statements:
"Access to ritual forms that have been recognized and have existed for centuries can never be artificially limited by decrees. If a rite were not serving the faith, it would die of its own accord; if on the contrary it safeguards and promotes the faith, let us not allow it to be restricted — because in restricting it, we would be restricting the preservation and diffusion of the faith itself."
I wonder if he is alluding to the fact that it is the Novus Ordo which might die out of its own accord?
Sarah has this parting shot for ideologue bishops and priests:
As a Church, we cannot wage war on those who participate devoutly at Mass simply because they prefer one form over another. It is a myopic and entirely ideological attitude — and therefore neither pastoral nor Christian. It is harmful and destructive for the Church.
“…Everything was just Hunky-Dory but then they went and changed the mass and everything fell apart“ THANK YOU FRMJK FOR EVEN YOU RECOGNIZED/RECOGNIZE reality! Kudos!
As pleasant as it is to see Frs. Kavanaugh and McDonald agree about som,ething--all the sarcasm just blurs reality. Of course everything wasn't "hunky dory" and the entire culture of the 60's and our degenerating society had a LOT to do with the decline of Catholic indicators. One would be a fool to deny it. However, that does not automatically mean that tossing tradition and creating a disruption that we STILL have not recovered from was a good OR necessary thing. It's true a number of factors have caused the Catholic decline, but it is equally true that the misreading of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the heavy-handed way the Novus Ordo was imposed also did tremendous damage. To ask if it was really necessary, especially given the state of the Church and the world, is a valid question that the establishment refuses to allow.
Exactly! For those liberals who are upset with the resurgent interest in the old Mass, just look in the mirror. If all of those changes that you mentioned—not one mandated by the new Mass—had not been shoved down everyone's throat we would not have the interest in the old Mass that we have today.
Right. If everything was not perfect then it had no value. And I guess that today with the new Mass everything is now perfect and hunky-dory. Thank goodness for the new Mass where Catholics now commit no sins!
Exactly!
The bishop of West Virginia must be listening to Cardinal Sarah. Good news for the Church there about the TLM. Of course our resident nasties will be depressed that the bishop is ignoring the ultra vires and hateful Traditiones Custodes!
https://wdtprs.com/2026/08/kudos-to-the-bishop-of-wheeling-charleston/
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, Anthony, Jerome, et al. - Folks like you, of your ilk, in your tribe, claim repeatedly and ad nauseam that the changes to the liturgy following Vatican Two have caused many, many ills - lack of belief, divorce, apostasy, vocation decline, non-attendance at mass, etc.
This unhistorical view - a fantasy, really - overlooks the fact that when the mass was in Latin, when the priest's orientation was ad orientem, when chant was dominant, when Latin was the language, when females were banned from the sanctuary unless they we carrying a mop or dusting cloth, when a paten was under the chin of communicants who were kneeling at an altar rail, when the PATFOTA were recited, and when there were no options, things were just peachy with Catholics.
The "Halcyon Days of Yore" never existed. No, Anthony, there's no perfection on this side of the tombstone, but your traddie crowd wants to shift blame for today's problems to a scapegoat - the Novus Ordo Missae. It's one of the oldest scams known to humanity. God challenged Adam, he tried to blame the women. God confronted Eve, she tried to blame the serpent.
Lest we forget, FRMJK, this post is about abuses of the 1970’s Roman Missal in the vernacular and orthodox Catholics aghast at the abuses I highlighted. Did you even read the post????
K the All Highest has a very limited repertoire - this is his problem, not ours.
He obviously ignores all of the liturgical abuses committed by the "progressive" element in the clergy, like he ignores all of the babies sacrificed to Mammon by his political party!
Fr. Kavanaugh, you are in complete denial of how the changes in the liturgy affected what Catholics believe and how they act. Lex orandi lex credendi after all. If there is no cause and effect why the great effort for liturgical change in the first place. The comparison between those who today go to the new Mass and the old shows how worthless your denial is.
Nor is the belief that the liturgical changes created a great dislocation of Catholic beliefs and practices the only reason that traditionally minded Catholics are drawn to the old Mass or a more traditional form of the new. They just feel that it is more reverent and expressive of their faith. This is a subjective matter that you have no justification to reject.
In all our discussions about the liturgy you always defend the changes on the ground that we do not always have to do things the way we used to, but you have never justified the suppression of the old forms. I have always advocated that the two can exist side-by-side. Why do you find this so abhorrent?
Father, #21, priest who used leavened bread, for the Eucharist, that sometimes with honey, nuts and raisins. Kind of yummy invalid matter.
#22, Using other readings, like Martin Luthet King's Letter From Birmingham jail in lieu of the Gospel.
#23, instead of adoring the cross on Good Friday, passing it through the crowd/congregation/assembly of the fateful like a beach ball at a rock concert.
#24, Improper vestments, such as diversity stoles. "Hey, Father, what liturgical season has the rainbow in the GIRM?"
Everything you cited I experienced. Back then in the 1970s and 80s, we were not looking for the old mass, but for reverence. But no matter where you went, it seemed like some crazy liberal priest was pushing the envelope. So, I began turning Byzantine.
Again, just because there were problems in the Church before the 1969 "reform" and just because a sea change of culture came simultaneously does not automatically mean that the imposition of the Novus Ordo was desirable or necessary. To even dare to QUESTION its necessity immediately ignites hostility from the entire Novus Ordo establishment. Sacrosanctum Concilium provided for possible adjustments to the liturgy and laid down specific things that should remain and we are still told not to believe our lying eyes when we read that document, but instead, blindly submit to a singlular interpretation that no one is permitted to challenge. Whatever "halcyon days" one might mockingly deny ever existed before 1969, at least we can honestly say what has happened since has been no "halcyon" for our Church.
In many ways, Father, I suspect you may be correct. Those halcyon days of Low Mass being rushed though and so on. But what changed was 'attitude': the 'numinous'. Mass became 'optional': Catholicism became a badge not a living practice. Sacraments a series of certificates and Holy Matrimony a thing to do if you like that sort of thing. The 'abuse' of the Rites in Church and at the Altar, set an example (a bad one) for living that faith outside of Church.
All of this shows the bait a switch with the new Mass. What most people are complaining about is not the new Mass as it appears in the Missal but the abusive way in which it is celebrated. But if you complains about this you are accused of rejecting the new Mass and Vatican II itself.
The Spirit of Vatican II and I am speaking of a corrupting spirit, post 1970 Roman Missal is more than just liturgical abuses gone wild, unchecked, not challenged by local bishops, but dissent from the Orthodox teachings of Vatican II by the left. The dissent by those on the far right was minor compared to what was pushed and accepted by the radical left. But, prior to the Council, most Catholics were proud of Catholicism as being founded by Jesus Christ, thus the true Church and that what we were taught was orthodox and the truth and we relied on the experts in Catholicism, to teach us correctly. The Baltimore Catechism is the apex of this in a simple foundational way. It was clear and unambiguous. It wasn't coloring book Catholicism. Shortly after the Council, because of wild ecumenical experiments, many Catholic simply didn't think it was important to say that Jesus founded the true Church which is Catholicism led by the successor of Saint Peter and one could legitimately worship God without the Mass or the Sacraments, meaning any Christian denomination was good enough and certainly there was a universal salvation for all who follow their conscience, whatever that means. This has led once strong and predominantly Catholic countries in Europe, but especially Central and South America to be evangelized by Protestant evangelical fundamentalists. They promote congregationalism, a private personal relationship with Christ and emotional prayer and worship but also a thrust towards proselytizing. It only took a short time after Vatican II for all of this to happen. And now we have the nones who think nothing of it.
Instead of “halcyon” we are facing institutional collapse because selfish nutjobs in the hierarchy won’t admit failure, that their insipid ideas did not, and do not, work. Synodality, anyone?
K is part of the problem, not part of the solution, but fortunately his breed is dying out so they can no longer do further harm masquerading as Catholic priests
Anthony - You ask, " If there is no cause and effect why the great effort for liturgical change in the first place?" I would refer you to Sacrosanctam Concilium where the rationale for the reforms is CLEARLY stated.
Anthony asserts "They just feel that it is more reverent and expressive of their faith. This is a subjective matter that you have no justification to reject."
This notion reflects emotional absolutism "A person's feelings are justified because they are his/her feelings."' Nonsense. A person may "feel" that she is wrongly denied ordination in the Catholic Church because she is a woman. Does her "feeling" justify her demand to be ordained?
I'm not denying that a person has "feelings," but I am rejecting the idea that feelings sway the debate.
I don't have to justify the "suppression of the old rites." I leave that decision to the proper authorities.
I am sure I will regret stepping into the fray and can expect the debate-trained mind of Fr. Kavanaugh to tear me apart--but here I go:
If the rationale for the reforms are so clearly stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium as the good Father suggests, then WHY have our "competent" authorities thrown out our sacred language (Latin) and effectively scuttled any use of Gregorian chant, when their continued use was encouraged or, at very least relegated to have "pride of place"?
The document informs us in Chapter 1 part A about liturgical norms that "As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided."
Yet this same document later tells us in part D that we can indeed adapt the liturgical books: "The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced." Besides the very contradictary nature of these points, this stabs the universality of Catholic worship in the heart.
We are also told in section A "hat sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral." How can we tell the faithful with a straight face that tradition has been "retained" when the Novus Ordo effectively threw out about 70% of the old Mass. To look at the Novus Ordo and call it "traditional" is about as legitimate as praising the clothes of the naked emperor parading through the streets.
I could say more, but I'll part with a couple of questions for us all to consider: Who were the "competent eccelesiastical authorities" who created this rite of mediocrity? It's a matter of historical record that its leader was Archbishop Bugnini a man of questionable principle and a man who--on the record--was immediately pulled from the Consilium and sent to Tehran and, off the record--was pretty much suspected to be a freemason. And "Saint" Paul VI? No one wants to dump on the memory of a pope and he did a few good things, but no one can deny some of the other disturbing facts about his personal life that have leaked into the public eye since his passing.
And the Council itself? What was its purpose? Councils are called to deal with heresies and define dogmas--and this one did neither. It is a matter of record that the schemata prepared by John XXIII, to finish the work of Vatican I were trashed and the Council veered into another area entirely. Yet, as Ratzinger noted, it is still treated by its sycophants as a "superdogma".
This Council and the "fruits" of its "reformed liturgy" scream to the heavens to be questioned, yet we are forbidden to do so. So much for the "Open Windows" this Council brought us. The fresh air Pope Roncalli hoped to ventilate the Church with has turned into a stale stench.
Jerome,
First K doesn’t debate - he spews the same old talking points!
Yes, when American churches were full on Sunday in 1962 there was definitely a “problem” that needed to be fixed. The “solution” has resulted in countless church closings and economic ruin. No money, no mission, as they say.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say Satan was in charge of implementing the decrees of V II.
The effort to reform the rites was rooted in the idea that change in the rites can produce change in belief and practice. You are denying the whole purpose of the reform if you deny that these changes can place. But it is by the fruit that the changes in the liturgy should be judged a success, not by the intentions of their authors.
As usual, you are mixing apples and oranges. Whether a person finds one rite more reverent than another is purely subjective. You may not share that feeling but you cannot deny the feelings of others. And I am not saying that these feelings give rise to rights, only that these are true subjective feelings that cannot be denied.
My remarks were directed at former liturgical forms still authorized by the new Mass, not the old Mass per se. The proper authorities have not suppressed these forms; you have. Will you not follow your own advice and leave that decision to the proper authorities and thus recognize the legitimacy of these forms in the new Mass?
Anthony is correct. If you questioned these abuses, you were told to read the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, as they then called it. If you came back and said, "Father (pick the abuse) altar girls, communion in the hand, standing for communion, removing the tabernacle oo the altar, etc.," is not found in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. " Father liberal would patronizing tell you it was the Spirit of Vatican II, or cite some unfindable (usually made up) reference to Notitiae (sic). If you wrote to the bishop, good luck. You might receive a letter expressing concern., but you realized, after reading the letter that they did not care, but still wanted your money.
Post a Comment