The Not-so-new liturgical movement


Good point JourneyHome.


You are definitely well read.


Yes, I believe you. They had no right to remove and destroy. In our neck of the wounds here in the south, many churches still have the communion rail, and the stain glass windows, and the statutes.


Where I live there are a few churches around that have that. A large number were “wreckovated” though.


That’s sad. The people, especially the young, benefit from the window and the statutes especially. I’m reminded that I was told, long ago, (at my age, long ago is not so long ago any more) that the windows and statutes were equivalents to our audiovisual aids and that they were used to teach a largely illiterate faithful. Makes sense. We still do that with the kids and our RCIA candidates.


On a previous thread, there was a link to a site called the New Liturgical Movement. My one concern was that I could not garner information about its location, to determine if it was a Catholic site, or some one independent of the Catholic Church behind it. For me, that is always important. Without episcopal oversight, any such group of bloggers should be taken with caution.

My overall impression of the site was a “singing to the choir,” in that the language was not conciliatory and apologetic, but polemic; cheer-leading for like minded people, not trying to convince those of a different mind.


Thanks pnewton. I’m glad I’m not alone in the impression I took from their web site, or from my several encounter with people, sincere people really they are, promoting the Tradition Latin Mass.


Even if you have the legitimate authority to do something, you can still go about it in a ruthless manner. I didn’t question the Holy See’s authority to implement the New Mass. I merely pointed out that it was done so in a way that was ruthless. An ancient rite so familiar to generations of Catholics was pulled out from beneath them in the blink of an eye. Then, to add insult to injury, that Mass that they had known and loved was panned by the reformers as evil, and they were forced to assist at a novel liturgy based on 1960s psychology and a desire to appease Protestants. For decades, the vast majority of Catholics worldwide had absolutely NO access to the Traditional Mass. It was just gone. Stolen. The high altars came down. The tabernacles were placed in the corner. Countless churches were “wreckovated” to accommodate the new theology of the New Mass. Those who resisted were slammed with the most extreme ecclesiastical penalties. Accept the New Mass, or else. Ruthless. Merciless.


Correct. Too often do we see the erroneous comparison between the organic liturgical reforms after Trent and the novelties that sprung from Vatican II.


Having lived through the era, this has to be one of the more absurd contentions I have read on this forum…even for a forum that is so evidently populated by a gaggle of non-theologians. The absurdities of the assertions boggle the mind of those who experienced what we lived.


It makes for an interesting word picture. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord ruthlessly and mercilessly made available to sinners in need of grace.

Yes, I think absurd is an apt description.


It is the truly sad and tragic picture of integralists.


In your experience (or knowledge), what happened to priests who refused to adopt the new missal? Similarly, in your experience or knowledge, what happened to seminarians who expressed interest in more traditional rites, devotions, and expressions?


So many who lived through the same era paint a far different picture than yours, Father.


I wish that we would stop hearing how those who prefer the EF are “integralists” (which is a very offensive word), retrogrades, reactionaries, etc. If only out of Christian charity.

“Integralist” and “Integralism” are the terms used by the academy in Europe to describe the range of phenomenon I am addressing.

Are you saying that academics in the United States? What is the corresponding term used by academics there?


Precisely. Which is why it is a term I will continue to apply, according to our usage in Europe – just as I would with the term “fundamentalism,” which is also a term used by academics to describe religious realities.


What’s an integralist? I’ve never heard it before.

I so much wish CAFfers would get off the pre-vs-post V2 debate. It’s never ending.

On the plus side, until I joined CAF I barely knew the Tridentine/EF/Traditional Latin Mass existed. Which means that most of us Catholics aren’t being frustrated by the endless sniping on the part of . . . the other side.


I think this a very widespread experience among the clergy – the closer we go back to the Council and therefore the more decades of experience we have the more we have seen this.

That together, with our own experience of having lived the Council, makes our reactions all the more readily understandable…that is that a return to the pre-Conciliar liturgy was a step backwards…which is exactly the comment of Pope Francis at a recent meeting of liturgists.


I received a gift of a subscription of it from an American when I was visiting the United States. The best thing I can say about it is that it made excellent kindling for the fireplace.I haven’t thought about that publication in years. Very sad people.


When I finished RCIA, I too started receiving that one, and one called “The Remnant.” I did not know much about traditionalism at the time, but I could tell quickly they had kind of a vulture-esque feel to them. Of all the things I have seen traditionalist do, I think I resent that most of all, as new Catholics were treated as prey to a predator. I think getting Jack Chick tracts would have been less harmful.

Of course “The Remnant” tipped me off with the title, as I was aware of the reference, knew it was misplaced, and aware of the psychology behind wanting to be a remnant.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit