Well, at 75 yrs I am of two minds about all this, at least. As far as the jettisoning of the tradition goes, I'm with you. Lately I read the blog that the Trappists set up for their Chapter meeting in Assisi this past September wherein a nun who was born in 1967 reminded the chapter participants of their responsibility to pass on what they had received. This made very poignant reading, for she herself could hardly have received the Trappist tradition, which was largely jettisoned by the order in the late sixties, early seventies. At this point for the monasteries of the order to refer to themselves as Trappist amounts to stolen valor. She imagines that she and her fellow Cistercians received the Cistercian tradition, but that is not true either, but detailing that is not within the scope a blog comment. Suffice it to say that the blessing of God is very obviously off the order, and that its monasteries are one by one turning into hospices. They have very few vocations, and imagine that this is because young people are unwilling to make a committment. No, the monks now in their 80's and 90's did not keep their commitment to live as Trappists. Emblematic of this is the used copy of de Rance's ( the founder of the Trappists) Treatise on the Sanctity and Duties of the Monastic State which I bought on Amazon,I believe, and which arrived with markings of Gethesemane Abbey. They had tossed it. Amazingly, it is now on line at Google Books and is well worth a read by anyone interested in monasticism. With the ineluctable principles he lays down in those two volumes, it is clear to me, at any rate, that albeit retaining the name and the habit, the order has vanished. As for present day Benedictines, they make no pretense of living anything more than a mitigated form of the Rule of St. Benedict. So, they are mitigated Benedictines. And while I am sure there are many holy men and women in both the Cistercians and the Benedictines, nevertheless the Cistercian and Benedictine tradition is hardly robust in either case. If it were, there would be saints such as these orders produced in their vigor. Yet, all is not lost, for the way forward is clear: repentance and a return to usages, customs, and spirituality of the founders.

Thank you for your comments - all of them. The voices of those with pre-conciliar experience are incredibly valuable to us young'uns.

There are a number of "start-up" religious orders whose founders and members are attempting to resurrect the original charism of their orders. Visit vultuschristi to see the sanctity and spiritual gifts attending these efforts. This is only one such order.

Benedictines? Not robust? I'll have you know that the Benedictines of Ampleforth Abbey have survived well into the 21st century without even having en-suite facilities in their cells. Fortunately, that oversight about to be corrected.

What could more clearly indicate that the Benedictine monasteries of today follow a mitigated Rule of St. Benedict– a rule whose celebrated virtue already was that it moderated the monasticism found in the rules of St. Basil, St. Columban et al–than this avowal by the abbot primate in 1995? : “RB is still used today in many monasteries and convents around the world. The monastics of today do not follow it literally but still find in it much wisdom to live the common life. It still protects the individual and the community from arbitrariness on the part of the abbot or others; it still provides a way of living the Christian life. Monastic communities accept it as their basic inspiration even as they mitigate it, supplement it, or adapt it to the living conditions of today. +Abbot Primate Jerome Theisen, OSB, STD” in The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia,(Collegeville:Liturgical,1995),78-79. Online: http://www.osb.org/gen/rule....

if Benedictines world-wide are following a mitigated rule of St. Benedict, then how can it be said that they are robust examples of the Benedictine charism? if they follow a mitigated rule, they are mitigated Benedictines. From what I have read on Cistercian websites, and they purport to follow the Rule of St. Benedict, the concept of obedience has been turned on its head and the function of the abbot now is to implement the will of the community, but this is absurd in the light of the RB. Compared to Benedictine monasticism as lived by the Cistercians at their epitome, what we find now throughout the Benedictine world are monasteries which might more accurately be described as St. Benedict's Home for Devout Catholic Gentleman.

A classical instance of an important, decisive mitigation is the universal non-implementation of this paragraph from Chapter 71 of the RB: "If a monk is reproved in any way by his abbot or by one of his seniors, even for some very small matter, or if he gets the impression that one of his seniors is angry or disturbed with him, however slightly, he must then and there without dely cast himself on the ground at the other's feet to make satisfaction, and lie there until the disturbance is calmed by a blessing. Anyone who refuses to do this should be subjected to corporal punishment or, if he is stubborn, should be expelled from the monastery." Perhaps after all, I am utterly mistaken and Benedictine monasteries typically follow this practice, which was obviously a very big deal to St Benedict, the abbot Benedictines proudly point to as their father and founder. The Cistercians, however, dropped it long ago, but they set out to follow the rule in all its rigor, so my supposition is that it is universally ignored, mitigated, with Benedictines everywhere all the while paying lip-service to the wisdom and balance of the Rule.

Of course, the Rule has several practical elements that are irrelevant today, such as the stipulation not sleep with their knives, but dropping that paragraph from Chapter 71 of the rule hits at the heart of spirituality St. Benedict was endeavoring to cultivate in his monks. Of course, the men of today would be very reluctant to cast themselves at the feet of anyone, senior or no, but it is hardly to be imagined that the men of St. Benedict's time were less proud than we, and more agreeable to such demonstrations of repentance and humility. As the primate of the order indicated twenty years ago the Rule of St. Benedict has been mitigated away. Nowhere is that more evident than among the Cistercians, or what is left of the Cistercians.

I will grant that everyone who has left father or mother, brother or sister and etc to take up their cross and follow after the Lord is worthy of commendation, praise and gratitude, and I am sure that there are many holy men and women living holy lives under the mitigated rule. Nevertheless, following a severely mitigated rule does not rise to the level of an authentic, robust Benedictine life.

"St. Benedict's Home for Devout Catholic Gentleman!"

This article reminds me of an even greater man that I met recently. (no offense to this wonderful french priest). I'm referring to none other than Atila Guimaraes, who is a humble, elderly, layman (still alive). At a young age, he interviewed the so-called "great" Vatican II council fathers. He was instructed to publish the interviews during that time and has since written a sixteen-volume work which is a complete masterpiece. It took him decades to unfold the lies. His methodology was quite simple. He asked each council father what their contributions were, what their sources were that stood behind their contributions and he went right to their cited sources, and was able to study their doctrines and compare to the perennial teaching of the church. Atila did this after being instructed to do so by the great Plinio Correa de Oliveira. Now, after so many years of unfolding the lies and following the aftermath of the council, has seen the results of the insurmountable heresies behind the teachings of the council (which most catholics including clergy) are completely unaware of, or willfully ignore. Atila has since dedicated his life to fighting the revolution with a counter-revolution by closely following the growing apostasy which undoubedly resulted from the council. This man continues to publish articles through his website: www.traditioninaction.org. <--- highly recommend reading aside from OnePeterFive.

I would very much like to meet him. I even tried calling the organization. I have read his book "In the Murky Waters", his booklet on homosexuality and the Church and have read de Oliveira's book on Revolution and Counter-revolution and of course many of the entries on his site.

I find it odd that Guimaraes is seemingly so little known among the Traditionalists I know. Possibly Americans do not know exactly what to make of him? He doesn't fit into a cookie-cutter mold of "Traditionalist" as he is not afraid to both laud and critique the SSPX for example as well as other Traditionalist groups, he isn't a sedevacantist, and he isn't afraid to resist to the face the blatant attacks against the Church that have come from any quarter, especially and most importantly from within.

He is, to me, just a "Catholic" which is the best compliment I can give. I cannot say that I always agree with him, but often on further reflection I'm not sure I was right...

I have always wondered where he worships?

Do you know?

Thank you for the article and the reference within, Very useful. God bless.

The Vatican II Church is dying before our eyes, although it is taking a while to go. The Vatican I Church died at the Vatican II Council, pretty much, or at least went into shock and never regained consciousness. That was better than the death of the Bourbon 'Church, which the French Revolution accomplished in blood and horror. (So horrific was its doom that Napoleon found it, like a woman raped and despoiled, lying in a ditch. He picked her up, threw a cloak over her and took her to an inn, where he made her wait on him. The Vatican I Church wasn't really born till Pio Nono was elected in 1848.)

Before the Bourbon Church, which was founded (or at least began to be securely founded) at the Peace of Westphalia, the Counter Reformation Church (1540 to 1648) was one of the glories of Church history. But the "powers that were" shut it down and tried to do to it what the emperors did to the Orthodox Churches: make it their chaplain.

So it goes. Each avatar of Holy Church lasts about a century to a century and a half, and then becomes a new avatar, but still the same Church, still the ancient Holy Mass, still the same teaching – or so it was until the Vatican II Church ditched the Holy Mass for a successor Mass that, to put it politely, didn't do the job the Old Mass had done since Gregory the Great (and before).

Once you see the pattern, the ebb and flow, you take to heart the wise observations that you find in an article like this one.

God rules. And thank Our Most Blessed Lord for that!

RC

This so-called mild mannered priest is exactly the type that put through hell many priests of his generation who were oriented toward tradition and resistant to the Revolution. It's just that he did it with a smile (often more of a wry derisive one) while the ecclesial executioners wielded the axes.

Sorry: this author's assessment is far too benign.

I was wondering the same thing, as I read further of this priest's reaction to the TLM still being done in the USA.

Perhaps this priest was seduced and was trying to seduce the author of this article?

As an old timer aged 75 I find this sort of comment naive in the extreme. Surely it could only have come from someone with little experience of life in general, or of life in the Church. For a better understanding of how things actually unfolded and the motivations of our generation, see my comment below, beginning "And yet . . ."

I respect certainly your life experience and have read in earnest your comment below.
Thank you.
Cardinal Cushing is a whole other matter, shall we say. I believe he would be in line with all this ecumenicalism today in theChurch?

So, why was it so seemingly easy for the heresy of modernity to sweep the Church?
Am I to believe that " rushed Masses" contributed? Or that a publicly televised Requiem Mass by Cushing causing embarrassment helped fuel this diabolical disorientation?
Or perhaps the not so nice and sweet priest who may have " balled out" a parishioner?
How could any priest abide by Communion on the tongue, standing, changing the Sacrifice to a mere table celebration? And how could so many millions of laity just go along with it all?

Could it be that mankind had become so disenchanted with life, as the 20th Century was filled with war after war after war? Communism, persecution and fear grew in the hearts of so many.
Perhaps priests, bishops and cardinals despaired. Laity grew restless, wanting more immediate gratification as the economy seemed to flourish a bit in the 60s. Restlessness took hold of a great many, and was sought
to be calmed by " changes" and progressivism, and materialism, and no longer praying the Mass of Sacrifice, but the Mass of Celebration ONLY..........Many, many priests were on board with this as well, bishops and cardinals as well. Let's be happy and make everyone happy - 'that' is the seduction I am was referring to.
And great wars can do that to any generation of people.

If only the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima had been heeded.....

It is easy to find this incredulity everywhere among Catholics and at the snap of the fingers on the internet. Sometimes the marvel comes from Americans, sometimes from foreigners, but the end result is the same; amazement that there is a setting of value on something so "old", so "embarrassing", so "outdated", so "ridiculous" "in America". I just read one criticism based on a defense of the new Mass because you can hear all the prayers {which technically you can't, as a priest can pray at times what he wants, as if silence cannot be trusted...because...what if the priest is actually up there mumbling an Irish limerick instead of actually praying to God???} and suchlike. Of course, with some priests even in the NO world that last fear might have some validity...

But in the end, often, the love for the old Mass often becomes shoved off as an "Americanism" or an example of a malformed psychology, or aberrant personality trait.

That a discomfort with the clear re-presentation of SACRIFICE is at the core of these criticisms seems impossible for me to deny. And that brings to mind St Paul:

"For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18)

And where do we today find this re-presented sacrifice?

Everywhere the Church is.

"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Mal 1:11)

And yet . . . If you listen to Cardinal Cushing's celebration of the funeral Mass for President John Kennedy in late November of 1963, a ceremony that was watched by virtually everyone in the United States, you will have a glimmer into clerical embarrassment before the world over our retention of Latin as a liturgical language. Here are some few seconds of Cdl Cushing reciting the canon of the Mass: https://www.youtube.com/wat.... I found myself a few days later explaining the Cardinal's rationale to a scandalized couple who were Protestant immigrants from Holland, namely that the words had their effect apart from how well or beautifully they were enunciated. This argument didn't fly, and if we were interested in making converts it was necessary to take into account how our liturgy was striking people--including our own people. Admitttedly, efforts to adequately address the situation have been counter-productive for the most part, but that was the motive. Although Cardinal Cushing's is a particularly bad example of how Mass was celebrated at the time, nevertheless it was often a very rushed business, for in post war US.churches were jammed and so was the Mass schedule. Many parishes had Sunday Masses at 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, which meant that Mass had to be over in 45 minutes so the parking lot could empty and re-fill. Figure in the sermon, the distribution of Communion and you have a glimmer why the canon was rushed, and often bordering on the irreverent. Something had to give, or so it seemed. It could very well be that people's sense of propriety was offended, that if this was the Catholic way of worshipping the Almighty, then perhaps they should look elsewhere, or just skip it.

Also not helpful was a very marked tendency in the priesthood- at least in my parish- to ball out the congregation for this or that, but I saw this both in parish priests and in Maryknollers who helped out. No doubt priests were under a lot of pressure, but it was often over the top.

Also, very parenthetically, I think a good bit of the thinking about post-conciliar developments is based on a post hoc, propter hoc fallacy, where phenomena attributed to the council are the result of something else altogether, the culture of distraction.. It is hardly irrelevant that TV came into the Catholic home in the mid-fifties, and by 1968 the first generation raised on TV were rioting in the streets. Our family life, our devotions, our family rosary, our morality, our quiet Catholic homes were overwhelmed by the new "culture." We were mesmerized in our own homes, much as kids today are mesmerized by their cellphones. No wonder there was a fall-off in vocations, in devotions. Who was going to go to the parish mission when "Gunsmoke" was on, or "Perry Mason"?

Too, the new culture- modernization-made the scholastic tradition seem ridiculous. Not irrelevant was the smugness that one often encountered in its fervent exponents. The actor Roberto Benigni ( Life is Beautiful) was asked to comment on his time at the seminary. "There are people who know everything . . . but that's all they know." My guess is that your priest friend had a bellyful of hylomorphism, which was probably served up to him in Latin. And when he got to he mission field, how was it relevant or useful? Of course, it WAS useful in understanding the sacramental system and much else besides. Yet a missioner is not a philosopher and the amount of time demanded for Metaphysics, etc, etc. was likely out of all proportion to his real needs and the needs of the people of God to whom he would minister.

My view . . .

As a Protestant convert, I need to comment on what you say here. First, I want to say that I just got done arguing with a Catholic on another site. I was supporting the notion that Latin still is a valuable asset to the Church. So I am NOT "against Latin". Having said that, you are ABSOLUTELY correct in addressing the monumental problems associated with Latin vis a vis the non-Catholic population. The language itself was a tremendous obstacle to evangelization of Protestants. Maybe the single biggest obstacle. One might argue if it was a necessary obstacle. I will not write here the common ridicule that flowed/flows from Protestants regarding the Latin Mass, but there is even a term for it. Your Cushing here caricatures it perfectly. AS IT EXISTED in the pre-Conciliar age, it was a HUGE problem.

My wife upon first experiencing the TLM said "Why in the world didn't they just take the 1962 Missal and allow it to be said in the vernacular?" But alas, we know there was much more going on there... But her sentiments have validity in that Latin was important as a lingua franca in the age of the birth of the Church and in following such a model, we might say the Church should adopt English today as her official language, and in 20 years possibly...Chinese?

Let's not forget the rank abuses that existed in the pre-Conciliar Church. I remember reading of a rule established by the Vatican requiring the Mass to be said no quicker than 15 minutes. If such a rule was established, it was...needed for a reason. Such a scandal equals the infamous "Clown Masses" and Beachballs On the Altar of the post-Conciliar age...

Right now, in fact, I am trying to lead my adult children to my FSSP parish. All are converts to the Catholic faith, but they have remained in the novus ordo world in spite of their disgust with the excesses of the current culture. Their problem with my FSSP parish is simple; Latin. It is totally foreign to them, they see no use for it, they don't buy the notion of a "unique, heavenly virtue" of a Mass said in a language they do not understand.

There were MANY problems with the pre-Conciliar Church. There always have been ever since St Paul chastised the abusers of the Mass in the New Testament! But Latin, at least in our current age, does seem to be a stumbling block to evangelization. An African priest friend of mine said the explosion of growth in the Catholic Church in Africa in recent decades was largely attributed to the use of the vernacular in the Mass.

Makes me wonder what things would be like if the Church had merely done what my wife suggested...left the old Mass alone, and merely allowed more use of the vernacular.

One thing I want to retract or qualify, was the following statement I made referring to the hurried celebration of Mass: "Something had to give, or so it seemed. It could very well be that people's sense of propriety was offended, that if this was the Catholic way of worshipping the Almighty, then perhaps they should look elsewhere, or just skip it."

This really is not correct. The setting was post-War U.S. in the late fifties and early sixties. The churches were jammed with a people that had lived through the Depression and WWII, a people that were on the whole very devout and holy. Many of them had seen death up close and personal, and i am sure many of them had a very close brush with it. They had all lived very frugal lives all their life long . . .until post war prosperity overwhelmed us all. How devout were we? Well, if you came the least bit late to the 8, 9, or 10 o'clock Mass, you could not get a seat. The ushers would go up and down the aisles to see if they could squeeze you in somewhere. If you went to the parish mission for men, it was jammed. It moves me to tears now to think of it, but at the "et incarnatus est" of the Creed all those men, many of them lately soldiers in Europe or the South Pacific went down on one knee to genuflect to the their King. it was thunderous. It was glorious, the thing I miss most about the old Mass.

We were a disciplined and holy people, and kept a Lent that is simply unimaginable now to the sensuous, delicate people that we have become. The Communion fast was from midnight on, no food or water, under pain of mortal sin. The Friday abstinence from meat was kept rigidly, by ALL, and again under pain of mortal sin. It was something that definitely set us apart as a people, as objects both of ridicule and admiration. Well do I remember the "Blue and Gold Dinner" held for cub scouts and their fathers on one Friday in the basement of the Presbyterian Church, where fish was made available for the Catholics and we ate it under the amused looks of our neighbors. We were truly a people set apart. This, of course, was a good thing, but as children of recently arrived immigrants ( our grandparents and great grandparents) we desperately wanted to fit in. And now, God help us, we do fit in.

Those Lents, and those abstinent Fridays brought down a great deal of grace on the Church, to a degree that was almost palpable. About two or three times a year the Lord would show up in a very big way at Sunday Mass. It is hard now to describe, but He made His presence felt and we all knew it. Yes, the glory of the Lord was present in our midst, unseen, unheard, except perhaps in the sermon.. Was this the result of the Latin Mass per se or our fervent lives of prayer and sacrifice as a people? Honestly, I think it was the latter.

So, if we were so holy, what happened? Again, post war prosperity, and especially television. The priest had forty-five minutes a week to sanctify us, but television had three and four hours a day to demonize us, and that is what happened. Similarly, I well remember leaving Mass sanctified, and we stopped by the local delicatessen to pick up the Chicago Sunday Tribune. We went home, had breakfast and sat around reading the Tribune for an hour or two and rose up secularized. Yes, that is what happened. In other words, it is very likely that even without post-Concilar confusion, we would would probably be in much the same boat we now are in, with ourselves and our children being carried away by secularism, hedonism and apostasy.

The Council and all its changes hit us at a psychologically vulnerable moment, when those who wanted to cast off the old restraints of a highly disciplined life now had a passably good excuse to do so. In many respects we were already in spiritual and psychological turmoil and rather than the Liturgy being the steadying influence it could have been, it too became a catalyst for more turmoil. Our lives dissolved into controversy.

So can the revived Latin Mass reverse all this? That is putting a very heavy burden on it. In my view, the far more apposite thing is to get the secular media out of the Catholic home. Once we do that, the Holy Spirit can get a word in edgewise and we will have more vocations than we know what to do with, full rectories, full convents, Catholic schools with teaching sisters, a well instructed people once again. Perhaps then we will even have the time and the interest to learn Latin, the language of the Church.

RodH, it’s important to stress to your relatives and friends that the Latin serves a profound
unifying duty. Tell family and friends plainly that there would be NO “One,
Holy, Roman Catholic Church” without Lingua Latina. The
problem is that language is far more than a mere communication tool. It can
easily be a weapon. And this is very true with the vernacular in the Churches.

Look at the Protestant Revolution: the first thing that happened that any average “pewsitter” would have noticed is that the priest suddenly turned around to face the
people. Second, the sacred hieratic language was ditched in favor of the
vernacular. Third was the de-stress (massively so) of the Holy Eucharist in
favor of the elevation of “The Word”: preaching. (Some Prot Churches were more
obvious that way – the Calvinists, for example – than others – the Anglicans
and the Lutherans.) The fourth thing that happened was iconoclasm. Probably
3/5s of Europe’s artistic heritage was destroyed in the 16th
century.

Now the shocking thing is that these four things are exactly what happened after the
Vatican II Council, during the “spirit” of Vat2. But as regards the language,
notice there that the Anglo-sphere got one Anglo version. “One size fits all”
whether American, English. Scottish, Irish, Aussie, Kiwi, or whatever. (And it
was a banal, lame version, too, a sort of basic grunt English.) That’s
also what happened in the Protestant Reformation. One version of the vernacular
ruled, and it was not “the language of the people” but of the elites. I mean of
the various dialects, one dialect was the one to stomp the others, and in
countries like France, where you had many languages, some not remotely related,
that was a cruel form of cultural imperialism. In Ireland, the Reformation just
gave the English yet another tool to beat down the Irish with. In Wales, the
joke is “Before the Reformation, the Welsh spoke Latin in church and Welsh
everywhere else; after the Reformation, they spoke Welsh in church and English
everywhere else.

Cont.

Most folks don’t think in these terms. They don’t notice how “weaponized” a language is.
But using a hieratic language is common to ALL religions (even if no more than
thee and thou, etc.). People have a sense that the holy, the sacred, is “Other”. Latin provided all that and the fact is that folks were converting to the Holy
Church before the changeover to the vernacular.

So, yes, it can be an issue, especially in a monoglot cultural sphere, but we can be creative about it. Many options are possible: special local vernacular Masses might be authorized here and there in the TRUE vernacular, for specific purposes. All that. But by far the most important function of Latin was to keep the Western Church ONE. If we went the vernacular root back in the Middle Ages, say, at any point therein, today we’d have a plethora of national churches in Western Europe, just like the Orthodox do in Eastern Europe. AND they’d be “in communion” with one another but of course loathe each other just as much as the Orthodox do today. Those Churches can’t get along five minutes with each other. It’s a horrific scandal. But there it is.

And that’s where we’re headed today unless the course of the Barque of Peter
begins to change. As we all know, a pope who tried even a simple, sane, humble “course
correction” got forcibly “retired”.

That’s our situation.

RC

One last point, if I may: many of you are probably thinking "we've gone a long way toward national Churches already!" And that is true. The German Church seems to be far down that road. And the Church in the various Latin American countries might well be largely unrecognizable to visiting Catholics from other lands. Any serious large-scale return to Latin today would no doubt see a large number of "national schisms" all over the place.

RC

The "German Church" appears not to be far down the road, but rather, to have already arrived at its destination, that being Wittenberg.

I agree. In fact, in other words, I made exact the case in my recent debate. I am not anti-Latin. But I am not stupid. Many people do not give the Gregorian Mass a second look because of LATIN.

I tell everyone that they need to attend the TLM at least 4 times in a row before they make a decision about it. For some it might take 8, others 2, but so often, I think, the end result is the same. They are hooked.

But we cannot deny history.

All the talk about the devotion of Catholics in the '50's must be taken with a grain of salt.
By definition, True Devotion can't blame "TV" for its demise. A true relationship with God, a true relationship with Jesus {and yes, ultimately...eternally...THAT is the relationship that matters} is not so easily defeated.

No, CULTURE was what much of it was, and when a second option to the existing culture was presented...the old one was junked. No one is going to convince me otherwise. Pre-Concilar Catholic culture was ripe and ready for any enemy to come along and cave in its battlements. History proves me right.

"As we all know, a pope who tried even a simple, sane, humble “course
correction” got forcibly “retired”."

Can you expand on that Raghn? post maith!

Can someone answer a question I have?

This "explosion of growth in the Catholic Church in Africa...." Is it an orthodox explosion? In other words, is it one that can last, and stand up to the pressures of modernism?

I know we can point to men like Cardinal Sarah as exponents of truth. But that is an anecdote. Does it prove a rule?

And, for what it's worth, speaking of anecdotes, Latin was not a stumbling block to my conversion to the faith. Quite the contrary. It was an integral part of the experience.

My opinion is that it is mixed. African culture is not amenable to strict adherence to rubrics and the like. That comes from catechesis and as we all know, catechesis is not the strong point of the Church today.

We are speaking sweeping generalizations, here, but I lived and traveled extensively in Africa as a Protestant so I am no expert, but I would be very surprised to hear that African Catholics are concerned much about the details of Mass rubrics and remember, the Mass in Africa is entirely novus ordo to start with, excepting a small enclave of FSSP in Nigeria and maybe a couple other places. As for the moral teachings, more so, but as for the Mass? Well, youtube some African Masses and judge for yourself...

And more; as you go up the ladder of wealth, you up the association with Western morality and culture. Something to ponder.

Extremely useful real-life comment... Thank you from Berlin, Germany!

Imagine a Hindu priest quacking and pushing out Bhagavad-Gita from his lips like this "Prince of the Church"? Oh dear....disgrace.

You raise some legitimate points. However, you make philosophical and theological formation a rather utilitarian exercise. Metaphysics wasn't for the pagans in the mission lands; it was for the integration of truth within the life of the mind of the priest and to offer the fullness of reality required for an authentic spirituality -- especially since it had to be lived "in the bush."

I also am surprised that the Canon was recited aloud in 1963.

I could be wrong, but I remember reading/hearing that Padre Pio's funeral mass was a shamble and conglomerate of rubrics, maybe something like a sung Low Mass? I think I saw this on a youtube video?

But I do think things were not so pat, ordered, neat and...orthodox even in the pre-Conciliar age as we have a tendency to think today.

As I like to put it, Vatican 2 wasn't the CAUSE of the modernist crisis in the Church, it was the RESULT. I THINK Pope St Pius X would agree.

The pre-Conciliar 1950's Catholic Church was not the solid edifice but rather was something of a house of cards and the things Lee Gilbert notes were merely the winds that knocked much of the structure down. People obviously did NOT have a deep and abiding faith in the Lord Jesus, a faith steadied by orthodoxy and shielded against novelty.

Nope, a huge proportion were CHOMPING at the bit to dump what they had experienced in the Church and they did it as soon as they could, and they didn't all leave because they missed the old Mass...they left because they had a very thin veneer of Catholicism and simply didn't believe what they had been taught...if they were taught! We in the Protestant world of the time saw this exodus in high relief. Our ecclesial groups were filled with them, too. And I respectfully disagree with the Traditionalists who say they left because they loved the old Mass. Nonsense. If they did, the SSPX would have been awash in numbers and would have taken over, that is BECOME the Church. Nope, they left for Protestantism, the Pillow Church of Pastor Sheets and/or Sunday football. Or a mix of all three. After all, there's no Sunday obligation in Protestantism!

Rod, amen. The revolution has always been about philosophy and theology. I love the aesthetics of the traditional Mass, but that is not why I am devoted to it.

"The revolution has always been about philosophy and theology. I love the aesthetics of the traditional Mass, but that is not why I am devoted to it."

SPOT ON.

Some Priests who have spent most of their lives abroad as Missionaries appear to "go native"
to some degree. The finer points of Catholic (Tradition) teaching are not considered sufficiently relevant
to the daily grind and "absorption" within the local culture and surrounding poverty.

And this is easy to understand and appreciate and a very human error of perspective on the part of
some such Missionaries.
An attitude they carry home and abide with in retirement. Although it's noted that in the case of the Priest
in this article his perspective was already absorbed by novelties as a young and impressionable Priest of his
generation.

Having been a missionary {Protestant} and been in many missionary environments in Africa and elsewhere, as well as having grown up with a father who was a Methodist minister involved in ecumenical activity, I find what you say to be very true. In fact, there is much blending of doctrine {rather, better said, from a Catholic perspective, ignoring thereof} by many Christian groups in the effort to help what might be called the "general cause".

The interesting thing to me is that in my experience, limited as it might be, I am not aware of any blending that has been to the advantage of the Catholic faith. Always seems to go the other way.

And hence we see the wisdom in such documents as Mortalium Animos...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...
This future missionary says Genesis was just a myth or some fairy tale story.
I heard the same things fifty years ago.
"Whatever the case, when the remnants of this priest’s congregation soon go to their rest, and the house is converted into apartments, and the guitar and the python vanish into a museum, and the last of the religious are gone from this town, what will his generation have left us? Whether it is what they all desired or what a few bad men desired, it seems they will vanish into the autonomous lay world they helped construct."............

Regarding the final words of the young Monk in the video clip, doubt i'll be coming back "next week" for "part two" as I have a prior engagement....

"as if he had woken up to an inconceivable future in which a rejected past had come inconceivably back to life."

That describes the incredulity of elderly Catholics who bought into the 1960s revolution and now discover that younger laity, younger priests and religious are embracing what they so triumphantly ditched.

I just told my wife about this article.

Her imitation of the mentality of the French priest {et. al.}:

"Ooohh! We haven't gone forward ENOUGH. Not everybody's gone yet!"

There's no fool like an old fool.

These are criticical times in the church. Lately there's criticism of Humanae Vitae here in Eire.
Glenstal Abbey's Benedictine Father Mark Patrick Hederman provoked controversy when he said what he described as the church's "stifling teachings on sex" need to be dramatically modernized.
He also said that the church needs to address its subjugation of women and to open a discussion on sex, celibacy and ethics.
"Now that we have legislated for gay marriage and accepted the fact that sexuality does happen for reasons other than procreation; now that we also recognize that some of the most heinous sexual crimes have been perpetrated within the 'sanctity' of marriage; it is surely time to take a more comprehensive approach to the ethics of sexual behavior," he wrote in the book The Opal and the Pearl. Hederman's book takes its title from a letter from James Joyce to Nora Barnacle in 1909.
Hederman said in the book that Catholics who wish to remain "conservative and old-fashioned," should avoid being sectarian and supportive of values and lifestyles that have been rejected by the majority of 21st-century families.
"Otherwise we are categorized as out-of-date leftovers from a previous era," he wrote.
The pope is visiting Ireland in August, 2018 after the abortion vote.
30,000 pro-lifers out of 5 million Catholics came out to pray the rosary this past weekend in Ireland. Let's continue to pray that abortion wont be legalized.
Prelates like Hederman are no help to the Right to Life battle for the unborn. Hederman is another James Martin. Why the pope allows this open dissent among his priests is beyond me.

"Why the pope allows this open dissent among his priests is beyond me." After all that has happened since 2013, I can only assume you write this last sentence with the greatest imaginable sarcasm.

Call me 'out-of-date leftover from a previous era'. I'm proud of it.

Yes, that statement is pretty telling, eh? Is that the worst of his fears - that he (and we) might not have the love and respect of the world because we believe and live, and teach Jesus, and Him Crucified? Poor wee soul!

Excellent point by the author that we are naive to wait for a new generation of 'traditional' priests and bishops…some saintly priests will come, some will remain faithless, and most will remain weak and faithful.

But really what difference should it make to you and me? Don't we have ONE soul to save - our own? We must become holy (see previous OPF article) and shine before GOD, then we may become that light on the lamp stand Our Lord talks about. Let the rest go their way.

"The pope is visiting Ireland in August, 2018 after the abortion vote."

Naturally, not BEFORE when he might be able to influence it for the better.

No, after, which I assume will enable him to "dialogue" with the lead pro-abortionists.

As a Church musician, I experience this same attitude often with regard to music. That generation is firmly and immovably convinced that all the older hymns (I'm not even talking about chant, which they would regard as not even worth discussing) are archaic nonsense that none of the "young people" want to sing. If you suggest something traditional, they look at you with a mix of incredulity and scorn. They are convinced beyond a doubt that what "the kids" want is more Ricky Manolo, etc. In my experience (both as a former young person growing up in the '70s and as an adult), kids don't really like that kind of thing and the sheer sappiness of most of it makes a lot of them (esp. boys) uncomfortable.

Why *on earth* would you ever go back to someone like that? What "gifts of grace"? This is a man who joyfully abandoned his vocation, and now boasts of it while he squats in the ruins.

"What is it that blinds them to what they have done?"
It requires a tremendous amount of courage to acknowledge not only that you have been gravely mistaken, but persisted in adhering to the grossly erroneous while all the evidence on a daily basis -- for over fifty years -- proclaimed your error.
While not immune from this pathological state of denial himself by any means, at least Benedict XVI acknowledged that the entire generation "defined" by this hideous ruse termed a "council" will have to pass away before the corrective can be applied.

Truly a fabulous and important anecdote. I find it balanced and charitable. Indeed the glorious times are ahead - in the Second Coming. Until then: Conform yourselves to Christ in the First Coming. Love your brethren, honestly pray for them - because we know that Christ THIRSTS for each one of us. Great quote from Father Waldstein. Thank you. God bless you and the Holy Catholic Church!

Whilst living in France I could not write anything positive about the mentality here, unless the objective is writing about FSSP.