A priest's story on why so much was discarded in the Church after Vatican II

[Kaesekopf]

Regarding architecture, remember that Art Deco and other streamlined forms were very popular in the 50s. The phrase, "sleek and modern" comes to mind. Straight lines, and functional design were all the rage. But our churches pointed back to flourishes and excesses of what many people considered "myths" of a previous time. Why should we keep running to St. Blase to bless throats when modern medicine had more to offer? Did priests really have more to offer us by way of counsel than Sigmund Freud in other modern psychotherapist? Who needs exorcism when you have psychotherapy? Was not our time mumbling on beads better spent with social action?

I never thought of it as Art Deco. I always thought of it as Bauhuas.

I just read up to the recreation of what the old priest said. This is pathetic. They thought they were doing good. Well maybe they did. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and they should have realized that Christ's Church never goes out of style.

Obviously, at best, these were men who did not understand the Faith. Because innovations in society and technology made them give it up.

That's my take.

Some were likely Art Deco.

The mass majority, though, were terrible bauhaus.

[Kaesekopf]

I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did?  It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster.  If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.

Charity demands that we recognize that people who have acted wrongly nevertheless had good motives.  We are to ascribe good intent to people as much as is possible.  I appreciate how the blog post helps me to carry out this duty.  I suspect this was part of the author's reason for writing it. 

I agree that their good intentions do not take away from the disastrous results.  I saw nothing to suggest that the author believes otherwise.  We do not speak of their good intentions because it affects the results but for the sake of our souls.  To constantly ascribe malice to others makes us into bitter, angry and unforgiving people.   That is not the sort of people that God calls us to be.

You think after the first few months of saying "Why the hell is my church so empty now?", they'd have changed course to the old ways.

But, nope, they kept on with their (diabolical) program to destroy the Catholic Church. 

[Kaesekopf]

I wonder if the old priest came to regret what he, and others like him, did?  It sounded like this post was trying to absolve him on some level...I'm sorry, but their good intentions don't change the fact that they've given us a disaster.  If nothing else it confirmed what most of us suspected: Vatican II revolutionaries were motivated by a loss of the Faith and a love for the world.

From the article:

One day I asked an older priest why so much had been discarded by the priests of his time. I thought I'd get a straight answer from him, because he had been one of those priest who reveled in all things new, and come to regret that many wonderful things of been discarded and lost.

I paraphrase the answer he gave in the first person. May he rest in peace; he died some years ago. But I remember his words well and he said something like this:

I have a little trouble with sympathizing him and his former actions, though.  I kinda feel bad for him, yet, it seems like it's too little too late.  The havoc he wreaked on his parishioners and the souls he should have been caring for while he was "reveling in all things new"... he should have stopped, looked around, and saw the rot that was being made. 

[Kaesekopf]

They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.

And I object to this.  They thought they were bringing Man back into the buildings (they failed in this, by the way), but there's no evidence that the Faith was their top priority.  We have an admission that parts of the Faith were dropped precisely because modern Man didn't care for them.  The Rosary, St Blaise, wise consel from holy priests, and architecture that gives glory to God.  None of these are dogmas of the Faith, but for them to be cast aside so readily shows a mindset that did not have authentic evangelism at the forefront.

I want to know why people think modern man and our modern world are so much more different than in times past. 

Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same.  What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?

[Kaesekopf]

From the horse's mouth we have an admission that relics of the past such as St Blaise and the Rosary were put away because they were thought to be outdated.  Wow...

I've been thinking the same way too. I was 6 years old in 1965, and by that time the Days of Rogation and Ember Days were taken off the liturgical calendar. I never knew they existed until I started attending Latin Mass at the age of 50, and I got myself a 1962 Roman Missal that explains everything I wasn't taught. I'm catching up real fast now.

Today, the clergy thinks that Madison Avenue-style ads will attract more men to the priesthood than doing quarterly Ember Days with fasting and masses. They think that print media is more modern than petitioning God.

The clergy also believes that man-made climate change is real. They think only man can prevent weather catastrophes by writing more restrictive EPA laws and levying higher taxes. Therefore, they would say it would be superstitious and medieval to do Rogation masses and ask God to quench the draughts, still the hurricanes and provide us with a good harvest.

I'm angry that the clergy after 1965 deprived us younger Boomers of fully knowing our Catholic faith until the Internet and blogs arrived, and Latin mass became available in more neighborhoods. Before that, I thought I knew my faith. Now I realize I didn't.

I taught my Novus Ordo friends about Ember Days and the former practices for Advent, and they were astounded and eager to reclaim them as practices in the liturgical life. 

[Kaesekopf]

I also wonder why the council fathers didn't just take the high church Anglican route, buy by all accounts, it seems the Church, especially in America and Ireland, was solidly into a low church mentality that would make an Anglican approach seem bourgeois or elitist.

Well, I think the council fathers tried that.  Look to the 1965 missal.  It's not "that" bad. 

Things really went to pot when Bugnini and his ilk took over with the Consilium (or at least with the 1970 missal, etc)

[Jayne]

They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.

And I object to this.  They thought they were bringing Man back into the buildings (they failed in this, by the way), but there's no evidence that the Faith was their top priority.  We have an admission that parts of the Faith were dropped precisely because modern Man didn't care for them.  The Rosary, St Blaise, wise consel from holy priests, and architecture that gives glory to God.  None of these are dogmas of the Faith, but for them to be cast aside so readily shows a mindset that did not have authentic evangelism at the forefront.

I want to know why people think modern man and our modern world are so much more different than in times past. 

Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same.  What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?

It did not really, of course, but that was a common perception.  There was a distorted view of science and technology.  People believed that these things made them superior to all the people of the past.  They could not believe there was anything to learn from tradition.

[EastWest7]

They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.

Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same.  What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?

It did not really, of course, but that was a common perception.  There was a distorted view of science and technology.  People believed that these things made them superior to all the people of the past.  They could not believe there was anything to learn from tradition.

Yes, I agree...and have heard such "thinking" (that contemporary society has nothing to learn from the wisdom of the past) referred to as "chronological arrogance". Even as a non-Catholic teenager I sensed back then this was a major problem in the American Church. Also, that it was part and parcel to the "enlightened groupthink" which to my perceptions at that time, seemed worse than the old, pre-Vatican emphasis on obedience (if you will...again my perceptions in the late 60s as an Episcopalian 13-14 year old). I still think groupthink as well as chronological arrogance have much to do with the growing militant secularistic humanism we see in society today.   

[Jayne]

They thought they were bringing the Faith to modern Man.

Mankind is still the same, society and culture still the same.  What made things change magically in the 1950s and 1960s?

It did not really, of course, but that was a common perception.  There was a distorted view of science and technology.  People believed that these things made them superior to all the people of the past.  They could not believe there was anything to learn from tradition.

Yes, I agree...and have heard such "thinking" (that contemporary society has nothing to learn from the wisdom of the past) referred to as "chronological arrogance". Even as a non-Catholic teenager I sensed back then this was a major problem in the American Church. Also, that it was part and parcel to the "enlightened groupthink" which to my perceptions at that time, seemed worse than the old, pre-Vatican emphasis on obedience (if you will...again my perceptions in the late 60s as an Episcopalian 13-14 year old). I still think groupthink as well as chronological arrogance have much to do with the growing militant secularistic humanism we see in society today.   

I really like the expression "chronological arrogance".  That describes the phenomenon perfectly.  And I agree with your observations about groupthink.