My daughter asked me to post a question to the membership who are old enough to remember the Church prior to Vatican II and who lived through the changes.

She would like to know what people thought when the priests started doing things differently.  What were people's reactions to the changes in the Mass and the Sacraments.  Did you (or others) ask questions and ask why changes were being made?  If so, what kind of answers did you get?  Did it seem that things that you had always been taught were unchangeable suddenly changed?

I can only give a partial answer to my daughter bacause I was born just before the Council and the very liberal Archdiocese of Seattle had already begun to adopt many changes by the time I was old enough to retain a memory.

Thanks to anyone who answers.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

I remember it well, and it gives me great pain to do so.  I hate to even think about it.

From my personal recollection, which I have purposely kept alive all these decades, is that things began to change in 1965.  I grew up in a large east coast archdiocese in the largest parish in the diocese.  It was too large, in fact, and had to be split in 1966.  Had they waited a few more years, everyone left in the parish would have fit comfortably in the churcdh had there only been one Mass on Sunday.

Everyone that I knew was upset.  It got to the point people dreaded going to Mass on Sunday for fear of what newfangled thing would be foistered on them.  Anyone that complained about the "changes" was told to obey because this is what the Holy Father wanted.  So they shut up and endured.  At least those that were left.  Many walked away from the Church all together after having learned that everything they had been taught prior to VII was a lie since now the exact opposite was being taught.  A minor example is eating meat on Friday.  Those of us raised the old way had the fear of going to Hell instilled deep within us if we committed one (1) mortal sin, and if you ate meat on Friday, that was a mortal sin.  It upset more than a few people that after VII it was okay to eat meat on Friday.

My first recollection is singing "Michael Row Your Boat Ashore" at Mass.  Don't ask me what the connection was with that song and Holy Mass.  When I was in high school and attended my first "guitar mass", they had us sing the Rolling Stones' song "Sympathy for the Devil" as our "Introit Hymn".  Could it get any worse?  That alone should have told us everything we needed to know.

I used to spend most of my weekends in high school visiting convents and monasteries since I wanted to be a nun.  No matter where I went, the sisters would tell me how "very tired" the priests were of people coming to them with complaints and "gripes" about the changes in the church.  There was also a lot of sadness in the sisters; you could see it in their faces.

It was a horrible decade, and it is no small miracle that many of us not only made it through without dying of drug overdoses, but that we actually had our sanity intact.  The older you were, the more traumatized you had to be.  The Church, world and people of 1970 were the total opposite of 1960.  Unrecognizable.

WOW!!! You two.  Wonderful stories.

Myrna, I'm ready for Part II when you are. :pop:

Stevus

Get yourself a copy of James Hitchcock's The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholics.  It was published in 1971, and you can get a used copy for about $2.00.  A real eye opener, and you will discover how "they" (especially the Catholic Answers' crowd) are trying to reinvent the post VII era.

StevusMagnus said:

Only problem is that libs will NOT shut up and endure. They will raise Hell. Catholics should have done this in 1965, but they trusted the priest/ wolves were doing the Pope's bidding.

They were.  All the infiltrators knew that the Vatican II Council was a signal to start attacking the Church and dismantling it from within.  Paul VI opened the floodgates, like a vampire pack leader giving secret signals to his undead flock.

 You don't think Paul "The U.N. is the last best hope for mankind" VI knew that endless  variations of the Novus Ordo Mass were being enforced everywhere and shoved down the throats of the unwilling?  You don't think he knew about the wreckovations?  So everyone knew except the "Pope"?  Speaking of wreckovations, there were very visible ones happening in the reign of Pius XII, who did nothing, such as the infamies of Le Corbusier in France.

Sainte-Marie de la Tourette('s Syndrome ) --

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Paul VI was somehow in the dark about liturgical abuse.  Not even by gouging your own eyes out could you say the same for Benedict, yet SSPX-ers persist in trying to act as if he is half-traditional.  Has it not struck you that we live in the information age when anyone can turn on the computer and instantly find out what everyone is doing and yet Benedict continues to fail to reprimand priests who perform sacrilegious "masses," "masses" which, moreover, have been filmed for posterity?  Do you think Benedict doesn't have a computer, or has no information about the plethora of liturgical abuses out there that trads have been talking about for decades?  Do you think he is unaware that the seminaries are pedophile havens?  HE DOES NOTHING.  Don't you get it?

 Look, go ahead and say you believe the Popes haven't crossed the bounds of infallibility with their errors and heresies, but please don't act as if these "Popes" are orthodox.  It makes me fear for your sanity.  Even if I were not sedevacantist and in the Vatican II Church, I would not go into denial like the AngelQueeners and pretend like Benedict, a heretic who gleefully spoke of Vatican II being "1789 in the Church," is going to fix anything.

Your posts make me want to grab you by the shoulders and shake you violently.  If there is such a thing as being too innocent, it is you.

My one wish is that the tables are turned completely one day and the measure they measured out is used on them.

1.) Orders from "the Pope" that we go back to the way everything was before the "changes".

2.) Disgruntled complaining libs told to obey because this is what the Holy Father wants.

3.) Priests growing "very tired" of complaining libs.

And I wish I could fly through the air like a bird by flapping my arms.  What do wishes have to do with it?  

Let's say the "Pope" -- glad you put that in quotes -- did turn back the clock and reinforced the Tridentine Rite.  What about the errors of the "Magisterium," though?  Are you saying you want the indefectible Catholic Church to admit that for half a century it has led everyone astray on matters of faith and morals?

The thing about you SSPX types is that every time they throw you a bone, some little sop to tradition, you act like a starving dog grateful to see a crumb.  You ignore that the one giving you the crumb is the same one who locked you in a dungeon and starved you in the first place.  You lick his hand with pitiful gratitude.  I'm telling you, you have a spiritual form of Stockholm Syndrome.  Stop accepting half-truths and demand the FULL faith.  It will take more than the Tridentine Rite to bring that back.

See, they have gutted the Church, they have made missionary work almost impossible, and those that do convert get so many mixed messages about what a Catholic is that the majority of them are unrecognizable as brothers and sisters in the faith.  There's no way to "turn back the clock" when it comes to what is going on in Rome.  That clock must be smashed into pieces.

  Alexandrina, your words remind me of the confusions typical to societies that are passing from tradition to modernism. One sign is that people get very trad (refusing flesh on friday) on some occasions, and yet very easygoing and modern (accepting you and you divorce) at other occasions. Well, in a really Traditional society your divorce wouldn't be recognized, and in a really modern one, nobody would care about any church law (including no flesh on fridays). it shows that at a point in time people's hearts and the society's situations are ready for seeds of heresy, otherwise VII or (or any other change) never happens.

Wow, Spouse, you're quite the learned theologian.  Perchance did you learn all that knowledge from Fr. C.?  Excuse the dripping sarcasm but you really deserve it. (I didn't pick Thorn (as, in the side of) for nothing.  I could write a book but gave a very condensed account of my life.  Since the divorce wasn't relevant to the story I simply said I divorced.  Then since I was writing for trads for which that would be a no-no,I threw in a reference about Nicole S. Didn't you pick up on it?  Allow me to further your education:  Her ex, OJ, KILLED HER in cold blood.  And don't tell me what the court ruled, I'm not interested.  My husband threatened to harm me, to kill me, and even pointed a gun at me once that I heard him cock. Do you get the picture now or do you need more?  Other things he did convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was capable of doing it and then be on his knees sorry that he had.  He hadn't always been like that but in the end that's what I lived with.  Yes, I prayed and was saved. Now, oh learned one, kindly furnish us benighted souls with church docuмents that substantiate what you wrote. Let me help.  Marriage is not only a sacrament (we were married in the church) but a civil contract.  It is true that the church doesn't recognize divorce but in order to divide the house and other property and settle affairs you must get a civil divorce.  I had to divorce, just like I said, as I was advised to get as far away as possible as soon as possible.  As long as he lives I guess I'm considered separated from him.  I do not date and have never remarried.  In the eyes of the church he's still my husband.  (I'm certain that I could get it annulled for good reason but I've never tried as I did go before a priest and married and am willing to live with my mistake.)  However, the church would never force anyone to live with such a dangerous person and with 4 small children to boot.  But let's say that I did date or remarry, I could still go to Mass.  I just couldn't receive Communion.  Therefore the moral of this is JUDGE NOT before you have the facts - and keep your fingers off the keyboard.  PS: I am one of the most staunch Catholics you'd ever meet.