Rorate Caeli

The Church of Vatican II: the lamps are going out all over Europe


1. In Vic (Catalonia, Spain), the Franciscans are leaving after nearly 800 years of continuous presence. On October 28, a farewell (new) Mass  for the Franciscans was celebrated in the Shrine of the Mother of God. (Source: Catalunya Religió - tip: La Cigüeña)

2. In Dieburg (Hesse, Germany), only four elderly Capuchins were left, and the local province decided to end 400 years of presence in the city; they are leaving in a couple of weeks. (Source: German Capuchin portal; tip: reader)

3. In Le Havre (Normandy, France), the large former convent, including a large chapel, that housed the Recollect Franciscans for over a century is about to be demolished. The last two friars left a few months ago, and the property was sold to investors. (Source: 76actu)


51 comments:

GE said...

And in Copenhagen, the Society of Jesus have left their parish church after 125 years. Once there were over 30 priests and lay brothers, and they were responsible for several conversions of important members of Danish society. Now there is one retired priest.

The SJ still controls the only Catholic high school in Denmark, but it is largely Catholic in name only and close to extinction.

Don M said...

Local cable has been airing the movie; Change of Habit.
Impossible for me to celebrate the 50 year anniversary of Vat 2

When I read the statements from our Holy Father and other Prelates about the fruits of the council, I wonder if I am living on a different planet?

I am not Spartacus said...

Death in Springtime in the garden of Ecumenism

Jeanne Holler said...

I had no idea : thanks for this information !

Even though very sad and disturbing GOD will truimph ...His Reign will never come to an end!

Let us pray for these dark days that are upon us!

Benedict Carter said...

Dat ole Vatican II Blues


Mama's been readin Rahner
Oh yessiree
She's bin readin Ratzinger
Uhuh yeah
Papa he dun readin Congar
bin praisin Cardinal Alfinks
And now he lay in bed all Sunday long
All Sunday long, all Sunday long
Now he lay in bed all Sunday long.

Dat ole Vatican II rolls on and on
like de lazy Mississippi
Makin me sad um-um
Makin me sad um-um

Mah sister she was a nun
A nun oh Lord have mercy
She dun change her clothin
An threw away the Cross
She gone thrown away dat Cross
My brother he was a priest
A priest oh Lord have mercy yeah
He gone mad in politiks
And thrown away dat Mass.

Dat ole Vatican II rolls on and on
like de lazy Mississippi
Soon de Lord He come with fire
Soon de Lord He come with fire.

cyrillist said...

Well... what if the modernist post-Vatican-II church was flourishing? Gamaliel had it right: "If this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought." (Acts 5:38)

The faster the lamps go out, the sooner there will be a vacuum, to be filled by the Real Thing.

A Mom said...

This always brings me comfort:

Canticle of Jeremias

Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, declare it in the islands which are afar off and say:

He that scattered Israel will gather him, and will guard him as a shepherd doth his flock.

For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and delivered him out of the hand of one mightier than he.

Then shall they come and give praise in Mount Sion, and they shall throng in to receive the good things of the Lord,

The corn and wine and oil, and the increase of cattle and herds;
And their souls shall be as a watered garden, and they shall be hungry no more.

Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and young men and old men together;

And I will turn their mourning into joy, and make them joyful after their sorrow;

And I will fill the souls of the priests with fat-offerings, and My people shall be filled with My good things.

Tom said...

"When I read the statements from our Holy Father and other Prelates about the fruits of the council, I wonder if I am living on a different planet?"

The Holy Father, for example, acknowledged the following:

"As we know, in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of being extinguished like a flame that has lost its fuel.

"We are facing a profound crisis of faith..."

In 1969, Father Ratzinger (His Holiness) predicted that "the Church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.

"She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity.

"As the number of her adherents diminishes...she will lose many of her social privileges."

Why has the Church collapsed?

Well, for better or worse, His Holiness, virtually the entire body of Cardinals and bishops, as well as countless priests and laymen will not link the collapse of the Church to Vatican II.

For better or worse, they will not agree with the notion that the collapse of the Latin Church is at least linked to the New Mass.

In fairness to "the Pope and other Prelates," as I had documented days ago in a different thread, years and even decades prior to Vatican II, Traditionalists warned that modernism was rampant throughout the Church.

Traditionalists insisted that the Church was in sorry shape. They warned that the seminaries were filled with communists and freemasons.

Traditionalists warned that the Liturgy, which they had claimed was in sorry condition, was in store for shocking changes.

Therefore, in fairness to "the Pope and other Prelates," who won't blame Vatican II for the collapse of the Church, prior to Vatican II, Traditionalists insisted that the Church had collapsed...and for that matter, had collapsed centuries ago.

Tom

Tom said...

"The faster the lamps go out, the sooner there will be a vacuum, to be filled by the Real Thing."

Not necessarily. That are regions of the world where centuries ago the Church had prospered.

In parts of Africa, for example, the Catholic Church was prominent 1,600 or so years ago.

However, long ago in the above regions, the Catholic Religion collapsed in the face of Islam.

Unless we are on the verge of the rise of Antichrist, it may be centuries, if at all (speaking humanly), before the Church recovers from Her current collapsed state.

Tom

Cristiada said...

The German Catholic portal article about the closure of the Dieburg monastery also says that the Capuchins have only 4 novices in German-speaking countries and 150 friars in Germany (where there were 850 in the late 1950's).

Brian said...

Vatican II was all about translating the Faith for the historic situation of the modern world. Of course, that presumes that the Counsel Fathers understood the times correctly.

Infallibility does not preserve the Magisterium from gross error regarding the actual historic situation of the times.

That was true in the 1960s and remains true today.

Templar said...

Throughout history, a remnant survives and becomes the seed of the next great age of the Church. Be consoled that you are the remnant and seed of the next great age of the Church, The Age of Mary. We await the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Matt said...

This is horrible info. Really. It goes to show the insidious rotting of the Faith. You know that analogy of Nero watching, well this is a case of the doctors watching while the diseased patient croaks.

To think we are losing so much of the physical patrimony of our heritage is so totally wrong. All the blood, sweat and tears which went into building such great places only to have them disappear in this manner is a shame. At the same time, a certain Gospel parable comes to mind. Paraphrased, use it or lose it!

JLCG said...

Perhaps the objective of the Council was to facilitate the disappearance of these orders. Perhaps, we men of this century, we do not value the type of life and feeling that was proper in other ages. Perhaps we do not believe that in order to be Catholic is necessary to give up manifestations of sexuality or preach a poverty that we would not be able to keep for one minute. Perhaps we practice some virtues in the most recondite room of our home.

Bernonensis said...

Gee, that's funny. My parish will be holding a lecture series on the glorious Council on Sunday afternoons during Advent. When I mentioned to the pastor that there was an indulgence available for attending, he told me that one of the things the Council should have taught me was that Luther was right about indulgences, and that the whole concept was based on an erroneous theology ( I was too polite to tell him that that's two things). I hope he writes to the Pope and straightens him out.

cyrillist said...

"Unless we are on the verge of the rise of Antichrist, it may be centuries, if at all (speaking humanly), before the Church recovers from Her current collapsed state."

Well, whatever it takes. Christ never promised the Church prosperity, just continued existence, and if it's best for us that the existence be a meager one, then that's what we'll get.

And speaking of comfort, Chesterton's short piece, "The Shop of Ghosts," has a wonderful message about Father Christmas which can be profitably applied to the Church in our (or any) time.

Stephen Mattia said...

Three last things:

This is not good - souls are lost.

We should fight to stop the madness.

Despite it all-His Will be done and His word will not return empty.

Ora Et Labora

Stephen Mattia

Glendon Cheshire. said...

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matt 7:16

The old wine skins will need to be tossed aside, and new wine skins used. God did not say "I AM WHO AM BECOMING." He is Who is. Our focus is fixed. We are only moving towards the one true God, or away from Him. All else is folly.

Andrew said...

There have been many mistakes since the Council, and the implimentation of the Council has been badly done BUT you can't blame the decline solely on Vatican II. Many of you are ignoring the huge cultural shifts that have helped in the destruction of the Catholic world. Let's face it, before and after the Council most Catholics were cultural ones. They simply followed the prevailing cultural norms. The culture has changed and most cultural Catholics have gone along for the ride. The Church still teaches the same Truth she always has. The Mass is still celebrated and the Gospel has not changed.The foundations of holiness (prayer, fasting, good works) continue to be the same. The fact that people are choosing not to listen to the Church and the Holy father is not the fault of the Council but those who fail to obey Christ's Church. Proof? Those orders, dioceses and families (both traditional and novus ordo) who follow the Church's teachings are doing just fine. Lots of vocations, growth and deep faith. If anyone wants a list of boomining novus ordo seminaries and orders, just let me know.

Marty-Jude said...

Andrew said...
"...Those orders, dioceses and families (both traditional and novus ordo) who follow the Church's teachings are doing just fine. Lots of vocations, growth and deep faith. If anyone wants a list of boomining novus ordo seminaries and orders, just let me know."

Hi Andrew, yes please! It would be good to know. There is Good remaining around the N.O. - The Fathers of The Oratory are proof of this too!

NBW said...

It's very sad to see some of the great orders dwindle down to so very few. God is in control, he's allowing this to happen for a reason.

Tom said...

"Well, whatever it takes. Christ never promised the Church prosperity, just continued existence, and if it's best for us that the existence be a meager one, then that's what we'll get."

That is why I disagree with certain Traditionalists who insist that prosperity is just around the corner for Holy Mother Church.

There are, here and there, positive signs within Holy Mother Church. But it's possible, as Father Ratzinger (His Holiness) argued decades ago, that the staggering collapse of the Church would knock the Catholic Religion to the ground for a long time to come.

The Church will remain but, as you said, it may well be "a meager one" (in human terms).

Tom

cyrillist said...

"...you can't blame the decline solely on Vatican II."

Fine, as long as we can still blame the decline largely on Vatican II. If we're talking about cultural shifts, the Council's combination of worldly optimism and textural disingenuity was part and parcel of the 60s' cultural shift, and single-handedly gave the Church a huge shove right in its direction.

"If anyone wants a list of booming novus ordo seminaries and orders, just let me know."

Let's have that list - we have to put a stop to this! (Kidding, kidding...)

Tom said...

"Let's face it, before and after the Council most Catholics were cultural ones."

Your remark corresponds to the literature of Traditionalists produced prior to Vatican II.

Their assessment of the Church prior to Vatican II was bleak.

Yes, at least in regard to the Church in the United States prior to Vatican II(and into the mid-1960s), Sunday Mass attendance was in the 70 percent range.

However, Traditionalists at that time insisted that the majority of Catholics were not connected to the Mass.

That claim is supported by a statement uttered in 1988 by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness), who declared:

"On the other hand, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient.

"I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the "Prayers during Mass" contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration.

"Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow.

"One was never in contact with the liturgy itself."

When one is not in contact with the liturgy, one cannot be in contact with the Faith.

That is what Traditionalists isnsited upon prior to Vatican II.

They claimed that the majority of Catholics were cultural Catholics...CINOs...who were far removed from the Mass and Faith.

It is difficult for Traditionalists today to argue that Vatican II (and the New Mass) had brought about the collapse of the Church given they had insisted prior to Vatican II that the Church and Mass had fallen apart already.

Tom

Long-Skirts said...

Andrew said:

"Those orders, dioceses and families (both traditional and novus ordo) who follow the Church's teachings are doing just fine. Lots of vocations, growth and deep faith. If anyone wants a list of boomining novus ordo seminaries and orders, just let me know."

Oh, Andrew, puh ---- leeeeze!

THE
GOSPEL
NARRATIVES

For neurotic-psychotic
“Attached” to the old
We give you a hireling
To take care your fold.

No need for the shepherds
Who seem so much keener
They’ll tempt you with dreams
Of pastures much greener

And say not to mimic
Past tolerant-barters
So heads were cut off
Who could dialogue with martyrs!

The shepherds tell fables
‘Bout a man hated, hailed
Like you, just “attached”,
Don’t believe He was nailed

Ld. Schmidt said...

May they all come to St. Mary's Ks. to stay, they will be received with open arms. Please Pope Benidict 16 restore our Church!!!

Cause AND Effect said...

Andrew said: "There have been many mistakes since the Council, and the implimentation [sic] of the Council has been badly done BUT you can't blame the decline solely on Vatican II...The Church still teaches the same Truth she always has. The Mass is still celebrated and the Gospel has not changed."

And how 'bout when they changed the words of Christ? No big deal?

In all fairness then, let's just say that V2 was 99.9% of the problem!

NIANTIC said...

Yes, it is true that prior to Vll Modernism had infiltrated the Church and many theologians and clergy were enthralled and infested with it. But the catalyst that gave Modernism its full and free reign was Vatican ll and its resulting "spirit". As a result the light of Faith has dimmed and is on the way to near total extinction.

Yet, there still is eternal hope because there still are faithful bishops and priests and laity holding on to Tradition. In spite of ridicule, shunning and condemnations from the powers that be these few, these faithful and valiant few, hold on to the Truth and hold the torch of Christ high in the darkness which surrounds the Church. Pax Christi.

Lynda said...

I agree with your analysis, NIANTIC.

Long-Skirts said...

Tom said:

"It is difficult for Traditionalists today to argue that Vatican II (and the New Mass) had brought about the collapse of the Church given they had insisted prior to Vatican II that the Church and Mass had fallen apart already."

Oh -- My -- Gosh! Liar, liar pants on fire!

PIUS
THE
TENTH
PATCH

Brer bishops
Brer priests
And brer people of god
Love the new Rite
Think the old Rite is odd.

Brer mother of ten cried,
"The old's tried and trued."
Brer people of god cried,
"Chill out
Take a lude."

Brer priest said,
"Ms. Brer have a coke
Serve with me
And together we'll create
A two Rite harmony!"

With these words
Brer mother got sick
And threw up
So brer priest urged her, "Go!
If you can't drink our cup."

"So you're urgin' I go?"
And her head she did scratch,
"Jus' please don't throw me
In no Pius the
Tenth Patch!!"

But brer priest
Flung brer mother
Out the door shut the latch
And forced her to land
In a Pius the Tenth Patch.

So mostly the
New Rite is given the nod
By brer bishops
Brer priests
And brer people of god.

But high on a hill
Brer mother of ten
Is singin' and kickin'
Her heels
Up again...

"I was born and raised
In a Pius the Tenth Patch
Known as the Catholic Church
And there still ain't
No match!"

B. said...

@Andrew
There have been many mistakes since the Council, and the implimentation of the Council has been badly done BUT you can't blame the decline solely on Vatican II. Many of you are ignoring the huge cultural shifts that have helped in the destruction of the Catholic world.

It is the same tired old excuse we all have heard countless times. However, it is also an excuse devoid of any historic knowledge. At least since the French Revolution, society and culture have not been as friendly to the Church as the VII-apologizers claim.

Revolutionary France, Germany during the Kulturkampf, Nazi Germany, the Masonic Governments of Portugal, or Mexico, during all those times the culture was heavily Anti-Catholic. Yet, a large part of the Catholics in those countries were able to withstand the culture and the trends of society. Only when the Church castrated herself did Catholics lose the ability to go against the flow.

The Church of today teaches that the martyrs of old were idiots. Our ancestors were martyred for refusing to attend an Anglican Mass. Today, those same Anglicans are simulating Mass in Roman Basilicas, while the Pope sends them a letter of congratulations.

cyrillist said...

Thinking again about those "booming novus ordo seminaries and orders" put me in mind of the seed that "fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth; and when the sun was up they were scorched: and because they had not root, they withered away."

Time will tell, but the Novus Ordo ground appears to be as stony as it gets - sufficient to enable rapid sprouting maybe, but not to sustain steady growth. And that would be the "orthodox" neo-Catholic NO, of course; the radical modernist ground is nothing but thorns.

And the good ground? Well, I wouldn't want us to become vain or anything...

Tom said...

Long-Skirts said...

"Liar, liar pants on fire!"

In 1988, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) painted a bleak picture of pre-Vatican II liturgy.

He insisted that a "reductionist" liturgical mentality had permeated the Church. He insisted that the disappearance of the "old" form of Mass was unimportant to Catholics in many nations.

He insisted that Catholics were not in contact with the Mass.

You may also wish to address your comment to the pre-Vatican II Traditionalists who, particularly during the 1950s, insisted that the state of liturgy was bleak.

You may wish to address the more than 2,000 Vatican II bishops who voted (2,147 to 2) to enact substantial liturgical reforms to revive the state of Catholic liturgy, which they believed had stagnated.

Finally, you may wish to direct your remark to the countless Catholics who describe their pre-Vatican II liturgical experience as..."rushed Masses...Low Masses...priests mumbling..."

Relatively few Catholics who recall the pre-Vatican II days want any part of the "old Mass".

The TLM movement is fueled overwhelmingly by Catholics who did not grow up with the TLM.

The majority of Catholics who grew up with the TLM prefer the reformed Mass.

Sorry, but that is reality.

Tom

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) 1988:

"Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow.

"One was never in contact with the liturgy itself."

Andrew said...

Again, all of you have provided wonderful examples of how disobedience to the Church, the Holy Father and the Council have hurt the Church. Notice though that the issue is disobedience NOT the Council itself. I find many of your arguments akin to blaming marriage for adultery. I challenge any of you to find me a religious order, university or seminary that has experienced great decline WHILE remaining faithful to the teachings of the Church and the directives of the Council as understood by the post-Conciliar Popes. For my part I will now provide you a small sampling of orders and Catholic institutions that continue to grow BECAUSE they are faithful to Holy Mother Church and the teachings of Vatican II as taught by the Magistarium (please note that many of these communities existed before the Council and have not only survived by thrived due to their faithfulness)! Thus showing that the issue is faithfulness, obedience and a commitment to personal holiness NOT the Council! The following is just a small list. If people were faithful to the teachings of the Council as taught by Pope Paul VI, JPII and Benedict there would not be the decline we see today. The following list proves that.

Please check out these web sites as they are edifying, provide hope and might be a good option for you or someone you know.

Women's Communities:

http://nashvilledominican.org
ttp://www.sistersofmary.org
http://www.sistersoflife.org
http://abbeyofreginalaudis.org
http://franciscansisterscfr.com

Men's Communities:

http://www.op-stjoseph.org/vocations/
http://fathersofmercy.com/
http://franciscanfriars.com/
http://www.omvusa.org
http://www.stmichaelsabbey.com/abbey/
http://stift-heiligenkreuz.org/English.english.0.html
http://english.bethleem.org/index.php

Universities:

http://thenewmanguide.com/TheNewmanGuide/RecommendedColleges.aspx

Seminary:

http://www.msmary.edu/seminary/




Long-Skirts said...

Tom said:

"The majority of Catholics who grew up with the TLM prefer the reformed Mass."

...and the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception.

Below is an exerpt from an interview on Mr. Kenneth Jones book, INDEX OF LEADING CATHOLIC
INDICATORS. It supports not only the facts of what is happening in The Church but what our Pontiff said in the 80's. I hope you read it and weep.

"UVA Interviews Ken Jones, Author of Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

Why did you decide to put together your Index of Leading Catholic Indicators?

For two reasons primarily. First, there really isn’t any other single, easy-to-read source that collects the vital statistics of the Church. This book was born out of frustration. I had heard a lot of vague references to a “priest shortage,” but I discovered that when I wanted to examine the extent of the shortage or the trends over several decades, it was difficult to get my hands on a good reference. Moreover, statistics about other areas of Church life besides the priesthood - such as nuns, Catholic school students, baptisms and marriages - were even more difficult to find. I spent a lot of time tracking down these numbers, and decided to write the book because I thought other people would be interested in looking at them too.

My second reason for writing the book was to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the effects of the Second Vatican Council. We all have our own gut feelings about the Church since Vatican II. Some insist we’re experiencing a vibrant renewal, others say we’re suffering through an era of unprecedented disintegration. I’m a lawyer - I want evidence, not feelings or anecdotes, to support my verdict.

What is your verdict?

I can only agree with what Cardinal Ratzinger said: “We find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence. ... It is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.” Since Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable – for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments – the “process of decadence” is undeniable." read more @ below...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/925806/posts

Barbara said...

Andrew said:

"Again, all of you have provided wonderful examples of how disobedience to the Church, the Holy Father and the Council have hurt the Church. Notice though that the issue is disobedience NOT the Council itself."

Goodness Andrew. I have just read all the comments on this thread and I cannot see in any of them what you see. Disobedience? Where? People are just expressing their concerns ( flippantly sometimes) and love for the Church. They are trying to understand what is happening. If you don't go along with "the all is changed all is changed utterly" since the implementation of Vatican II - well good for you. Some people and not only the few who have commented here - but great luminaries would disagree with you.

Thanks for the list - I will check it out.

Barbara

J. G. Ratkaj, Salvador da Bahia said...

The unprecedented decline in the history of the Church since the Council is continously sugarcoated by the Conservatives. They allege a so called false "implementation". The Council itself was a caesura. All those who have lived in the church before the council even know that this council marks a fatal rupture. Furthermore, it is a cheap excuse referring to broad trends of secularization. It was the church itself, which has contributed to that effectively in the last 50 years. Why should someone be member of a church, whose highestr ranking hierarchs see in the church only a "positive option". Complaining the world is not enough. It's the hierarchy that should exercise self-criticism. But no, it's much easier to lament an "incorrect implementation of the council" and adverse circumstances of the time.

CH DUPUY said...

Tom said: "The majority of Catholics who grew up with the TLM prefer the reformed Mass."
Not so, at least in Latin America. I remember that one of the puzzling reforms of the Council for the majority of faithful Catholics (not the nominal ones) was the change of the Mass and the introduction of the vernacular, because we loved the Old Mass and the use of Latin was a sign of the universality of the Church. If as you affirm at the time of VII the Church was ripe with modernists, masons and communists eager to destroy Her the Council did nothing to stop that tred, but rather accelerated same. It has been suggested in some Traditionalist sites that John XXIII was suspected of masonry, and even if not, he sympathized with them. That is consonant with the abrogation of the TLM, and the masonic purpose to found a universal religion.

LeonG said...

"Relatively few Catholics who recall the pre-Vatican II days want any part of the "old Mass"."

Well, I can assure you in our parish of more than 500 faithful Roman Catholics we were all bemused and saddened by what was going on from 1965 to 1970 as our regular Holy Mass was dismantled. I cannot imagine we were the only ones.
As an altar server, apprentice master of ceremonies and regular Gregorian choir member I was heart-broken and I am even more so today because I know the same predominant mentality exists in Rome today - they are not happy with the liturgy and want to merge it with The Latin Mass. This will fabricate something even worse. I am ready to fight for The Latin Mass as never before and so should we all be. This liberal modernist nonsense has gone on long enough.

Barbara said...

"I am ready to fight for The Latin Mass as never before and so should we all be. This liberal modernist nonsense has gone on long enough."

Oh yes,I totally agree, Leon G!

The Rad Trad said...

"The majority of Catholics who grew up with the TLM prefer the reformed Mass."

No, the majority who grew up with the old Mass stopped attending all together when the new rite was introduced.

Many attended less and less when the TLM was being modified, and stopped when the full-blown new rite was published. Some lost their faith. Some interest in their faith. Some maintained it in private devotion, like my grandmother. But to say that the majority of people who remember the TLM as the norm prefer the new rite, without any qualifications, ignores what actually happened.

Blame whatever you want: a few modernists, improper implementation of the Council, disobedience etc. The Mass is the heart of Catholicism. We cannot pretend that radical alterations to this prayer, which God hears, had a minor or negligible effect.

Augustinus said...


"Tom said: "The majority of Catholics who grew up with the TLM prefer the reformed Mass."
Not so, at least in Latin America"

Kindly explain, then, why the TLM scarcely exists in Latin America outside the tiny enclave that is Campos.

As Traditionalists we do ourselves no favor by sugarcoating the real situation of the TLM movement -- not as bad as the modernists want, but not as good as most of us would like, either.

Tom said...

The Rad Trad said...

"No, the majority who grew up with the old Mass stopped attending all together when the new rite was introduced."

I am not certain about that. My recollection of that time — the late 1960s into the early 1970s — was that Catholics who had spent, maybe 25...30 years...or more with the TLM tended to remain within the Church.

Yes, many Catholics from that group were upset with the liturgical changes that they had encountered.

But as I recall and the following continues to interest me, the majority of "older" Catholics during that time had expressed greater outrage in regard to the wreckovation of their beautiful churches, the manner in which they perceived that the Blessed Virgin Mary (and the overall Communion of Saints) had been, if you will, downgraded...

...the removal of votive candles, sacred statues, confessionals...

...destruction of meatless Fridays, May Crownings and so on.

Over and over again during that time, I heard older Catholics exclaim that they were pleased that Father's back wasn't turned to them as he "mumbled" in Latin.

Again, what ourtraged them greatly was the manner in which everything else had changed within the Church.

It amazed me, however, that when it came to many radical liturgical changes, for example, Communion in the hand, countless Faithful who had grown up in the "pre-Vatican II Church" were quick to embrace innovations.

Again, I am not saying that many Catholics who had grown up with the TLM did not leave the Church.

But I recall that a great many who had exited the Faith were Catholics who were about 10 to 15 years old during the mid-to-late 1960s.

By the mid-to-late 1970s, Catholics in their late teens and into their 20s had, in large measure, grown disinterested in the Church.

At any rate, it is clear today that, if you will, younger "post-Vatican II" Catholics, have fueled the greatest amount of interest in the TLM.

The TLM Movement took off, for the most part, during th 1980s. From that time to date, the majority of Catholics who had grown up with the TLM have made it clear that they don't want any part of the TLM.

That is reality.

Actually, the main problem that older Catholics have (and had) with the "old" Mass revolved around language.

That said, believe it or not, Mass ad orientem also is disliked strongly by older Catholics.

Tom

Tom said...

The Rad trad said:

"Blame whatever you want: a few modernists, improper implementation of the Council, disobedience etc. The Mass is the heart of Catholicism. We cannot pretend that radical alterations to this prayer, which God hears, had a minor or negligible effect."

I agree with you. Untimately, the crisis of Faith, at least within the Latin Church, which exploded most visibly following the Council, is the primary result of the liturgical revolution.

I am a Traditionalist. But I don't march in lockstep with everything that flows, if you will, from Traditionalist Headquarters.

The notion from Traditionalists that the Latin Church, just prior to Vatican II, was a liturgical Garden of Eden is nonsense.

The Low Mass mentality..rushed Masses...let's go to Mass then leave as fast as we can...Father "mumbling" in Latin...pervaded the Latin Church.

For a rational evaluation of the state of pre-Vatican II liturgy, I never hesitate to turn to Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratinger.

During a 1988 A.D. address, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) painted a bleak picture of the state of pre-Vatican Latin Church liturgy.

He denounced the "reductionist" liturgical mentality that had permeated the (Latin) Church.

He declared that the disappearance of the "old" form of Mass was unimportant to Catholics in many nations.

He declared that Catholics were not in contact with the Mass.

Yes, the liturgical revolution has ripped apart the Latin Church.

But the Latin Church was primed for liturgical chaos as the pre-Vatican II state of Latin Church liturgy was, if you will, iffy at best.

Only an extremely careful and balanced liturgical reform could have succeeded during the 1960s.

Unfortunately, the liturgical "reform" was neither careful nor balanced, at least in its implementation.

There isn't any question that the liturgical "reform"..."renewal" has wrecked the Latin Church.

Tom

LeonG said...

"If people were faithful to the teachings of the Council as taught by Pope Paul VI, JPII and Benedict there would not be the decline we see today"

Correction Andrew, The Roman Catholic Church has a Magesterium that goes back to Our Blessed Lord's foundation not 1965 as you imply.
Furthermore, some of the houses you quote belong to well-established orders such Dominicans, Franciscans and so forth. Also, the Fathers of Mercy were founded in 1809 not after the revolution of 1965.
Moreover, while the websites you quote may well represent the best of the conciliarist church, unfortunately, only someone with their head in the clouds could possibly deny the wreckage left by a church like its liturgical form, that has gone from being Christocentric to anthropocentric and pastoral processes that reinforce liturgical to produce a majority of followers who do not know and understand their faith. The church’s own surveys have demonstrated this latter fact.
So appalling is the downsizing that in the diocese of the UK where I was born, since the VCIIs, here are some statistics. In our deanery (13 in the Diocese) – loss of Carmelite Priory; La Sainte Union Convent; 2 Salesian Houses; Prinknash Abbey down from 40 youthful members to an aging remnant of 12 returned to their old hunting lodge; reduced number of nuns caring for the elderly at Nazareth House replaced by qualified lay staffing. Some Diocesan statistics 1969 are (highest numbers for most categories) to 2004 (current trends to 2012 still downward and aging). Attendance at Mass 85%, now 15%; male religious 194 now 81; female religious 764 (1950) now 265; total priests 275 now 199; presbyters per catholic 1:369 now 1:673. The most disturbing aspect is the average age of all categories is over 50 and many are at retirement age. This pattern repeats itself all over UK. From 1982 to 2010 between two papal visits all UK chief indicators are down significantly. In France, the situation is dire as 4.5% of those who consider themselves catholic go to Mass at least once a month. Many diocesan seminaries have not seen a seminarian for years. I go no further.
We will see with time how many of the really new religious foundations will endure. They certainly will not if they are anchored only in the ambiguous documents of the VCIIs which you do not seem to have read. Nor do you seem to acknowledge the un-catholic ecumenical and interreligious philosophy of the new catholic church and the papacies which have led it that are in all honesty diametrically opposed to the consistent teachings of previous popes going back over the centuries.
What you try to imply flies in the face of reality and almost all of the chief indicators.

Andrew said...

Barbara,

By disobedience I was referring to liberals who pushed their own liberal interpretation of Vatican II. I was not refering to orthodox Catholics (both Novus Ordo and Tridentine attendees) who have expressed concern over the direction of the Church since the Council.

Again, my issue is blaming the Council itself. The list I posted shows that faithful adherence to the Faith and the interpretation of the Council as laid out by the Pope does not result in decay.

Another example, during much of the Church's destruction the 1917 Code of Cannon law was still in force (up until 1983). Do we blame the 1917 Code for all the craziness that took place during the 1970's? No, of course not. Why? Its not the Code itself that was the problem but rather the lack of obedience and enforcement to that Code. Same thing with the Council.

Finally, the challenge still stands...find me examples of communities who are in decline while at the same time following the orthodox interpretation of Vatican II as set out by the Pope. I don't think you can. Thus proving my point that the decline is not the Council's fault but rather disobedience to the Council, the Popes and the Magistarium.

Tom said...

Andrew said:

"By disobedience I was referring to liberals who pushed their own liberal interpretation of Vatican II.

"Again, my issue is blaming the Council itself. The list I posted shows that faithful adherence to the Faith and the interpretation of the Council as laid out by the Pope does not result in decay."

Andrew, I understand your approach and agree with you in a certain sense.

I am a Traditionalist. But I don't march in lockstep with everything that is decreed from Traditionalist Headquarters.

Headquarters is determined to blame the collapse of the Faith entirely upon Vatican II. The Latin Church was supposedly a liturgical Garden of Eden.

The above is nonsense. Prior to Vatican II, a "reductionist" liturgical mumbled Low Mass mentality had marred the TLM.

The determination to inflict radical change upon Holy Mother Church did not originate at Vatican II.

In that sense, Vatican II is not at fault for the collapse of the Church. It is in that sense that I agree with your remarks.

Where I disagree with you is as follows:

The simple adherence to the Holy See's official interpretations and declarations does not necessarily overcome the crisis of Faith that has engulfed Holy Mother Church.

Andrew, for example, in regard to liturgy, is the Holy See who approved Communion in the hand, altar girls, bizarre liturgical inculturation, drums, guitars, EMs, lay lectors, and so forth.

It was Pope Paul VI who, in 1969, declared that the New Mass contained departures from Holy Tradition.

During the past 50 years, it is the Holy See who has given us shocking ecumenical/"interfaith" gatherings.

Like it or not, the impression has been given that Protestant "Archbishops" and "priests" are somehow legitimate clergymen.

It is beyond belief that even Voodoo witchdoctors continue to receive invitations to participate at Catholic managed "interfaith" gatherings.
---------------------------------

The following section features teachings found within the "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism"

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

The Holy See's teachings allow non-Catholics to perform certain functions during Mass.

Catholics are encouraged to pray and worship with non-Catholics.

The shared ownership of joint Catholic/non-Catholic churches is promoted.

Incredibly, in that situation, th following is taught:

"139. When authorization for such ownership or use is given by the diocesan Bishop, according to any norms which may be established by the Episcopal Conference or the Holy See, judicious consideration should be given to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, so that this question is resolved on the basis of a sound sacramental theology with the respect that is due, while also taking account of the sensitivities of those who will use the building, e.g., by constructing a separate room or chapel."
-----------------------------------

Andrew, the problem in accepting your premise is that Rome continues to force shocking, Faith-sapping novelties into a marriage with Holy Tradition.

What are we to do as Catholics? Refuse to embrace the Holy See's novelties by, which means confrontation with Rome?

March in lockstep with destructive novelties to avoid trouble with Rome?

The Traditionalist Movement overall has thrived and produced holy and abundant fruit.

What is the general state of the remainder of the Latin Church, where parishes have accepted post-Rome-approved novelties — the New Orientation?

Tom

Tom said...

Andrew replied to Barbara:

"Finally, the challenge still stands...find me examples of communities who are in decline while at the same time following the orthodox interpretation of
Vatican II as set out by the Pope. I don't think you can.

"Thus proving my point that the decline is not the Council's fault but rather disobedience to the Council, the Popes and the Magistarium."

We can argue against Andrew all day...and I'm not in agreement with all that he has stated.

But the bottom line — the very important bottom line — is that Pope Benedict XVI and virtually each bishop on earth are on Andrew's side of the argument.

Pope Benedict XVI will not accept for a second the claim that Vatican II caused the crisis of Faith that exploded following said Council.

For that matter, His Holiness will not accept the claim that the Novus Ordo itself is in any way responsible for the collapse of the (Latin) Church.

His Holiness will accept that the manner in which the liturgical reform (revolution) was implemented spurred liturgical chaos within the (Latin) Church.

But not for a second will he accept that the Novus Ordo itself and, for that matter, Vatican II, released chaos throughout the Church.

Virtually each Catholic bishop throughout the world is in agreement with His Holiness in regard to the above.

Countless priests (and laymen who control parishes) agree with the Pope and bishops...and Andrew.

Tom

CH DUPUY said...

Augustinus said:
"Tom said: "The majority of Catholics who grew up with the TLM prefer the reformed Mass."
Not so, at least in Latin America"
Kindly explain, then, why the TLM scarcely exists in Latin America outside the tiny enclave that is Campos.
Please refer to my post in which I make clear that not so, at least in real Catholics, not nominal ones. Besides, you are wrong if you say that in LA the TLM scarcely exists. It is thriving all through Latin America, with the exception of Nicaragua and Honduras. Our country, Costa Rica, recently opened a chapter of UNA VOCE INT'L. and also celebrated the First TLM since the l960's.

The Rad Trad said...

@Tom

There was a "reductionist" mentality, certainly. Low Mass dominated Sunday, people said the Rosary will the priest sped through Mass in 20 minutes, Communion might be distributed at a side chapel, and people lived off devotions. Priests rarely had any experience, even in seminaries, singing the Office in choir. None of this mandated a change in the liturgy, but rather a revival in its practice (although nowadays revival = re-invention). This liturgy had been remarkably effective where ever it was practiced with faith and fear of God. Nothing was intrinsically wrong with it. We already know all of this. Nothing is going to return us to 1950 and allow us to amend the practice of the old rite. Right now the question is how to revive the Roman rite and phase out the new rite without causing a second uproar.

With regards to who stayed and who left during and after the innovations. Many "old" Catholics, those in their 60s and on, stayed out of fidelity. Many of the youth left, to be sure, given the impression that Catholicism was fungible at last and that the social revolution at that time was more promising for satisfaction. Those who stayed among the younger generation tended to either be: 1-indifferent people who would attend regardless of what the rite was (and many of them slowly left in the 1970s and 1980s) and 2-the people who engineered and facilitated the changes. Neither of these groups seem to be in a good position to evaluate the worth of the old rite to the pre-VII generation. Still, I remember an issue of the Tablet (I think in the mid-1980s) which asked which rite people would prefer. A third preferred the new, a slightly higher number preferred the old, and the rest had absolutely no opinion. In short, my point is that while there was an illness in the Church, an early version of cafeteria a Catholicism, we left the making of the medicine to those who made the disease and things got much, much worse than they would have been if we left the healing task to a real doctor.

And do not knock cultural Catholicism outright. While it gives people like Biden an outlet to promote killing children, in better times it kept people in the Church and provided them with outlets to God when they realized they should take faith seriously. Now those people, when difficulty strikes, are left to flail in the wind.

Re: vocational growth in "obedient" orders and seminaries. There is some truth to that, but Andrew is overly-optimistic. My own diocese ordains 5 or 6 men a year and gets about a dozen seminarians a year (many of whom have an attachment to tradition). These numbers are double what they were a decade ago, but are still 50% below replacement rate. It is easy to say "obedient" seminaries are bursting at the seams when in 1960 we had 600 seminaries in the USA and now have about 200. Consolidation is very effective. There is some genuine growth, but let us not kid ourselves and pretend that we are in some magical springtime.

While I think many of we who comment here like to commiserate, many of us also look forward o participating in the restoration.

Pascale said...

I have discovered your blog only today.
You can add to your sad list the basilica Saint-Vincent in Metz (France) which has been offered in shameful conditions by our bishop to the City to make of it a "place of culture". The former Benedictine abbey Saint-Vincent was created in 968. Metz is one of the birth places of gregorian chant.
Pope Paul VI has said something like: "By some cracks, Satan's smokes have entered into God's house." I think that there were more than cracks, and that some doors and windows have been widely opened by some priests and bishops.