Header image: a collage of headlines from Catholic diocesan newspapers between June 1964 and December 1965. Sources: Catholic News Archive and Newspapers.com, public domain. To view the full-size image, click here.

This article was originally published on October 27, 2025.

Links to the other parts of the series can be found here: Main Page, Series Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, and the Series Conclusion.

The preceding two installments of this series have demonstrated, first, that the “New Mass” seems to have arrived in 1964 rather than 1970 for most Catholics who lived through the ‘interim’ years and, second, that a sizeable and consistent percentage of the laity–far larger than previously thought–were unhappy with the interim liturgical changes and were not clamoring for more.

This unhappiness expressed itself in a number of ways. Throughout this period, diocesan newspapers were full of letters to the editor, queries to Q&A columns, news articles, and commentary which demonstrated the confusion, fears, and frustrations of the laity concerning the liturgical changes. 

But they also revealed something more than mere unhappiness: they documented ongoing “resistance” to the new liturgy – from both laity and clerics alike.

There are a number of existing articles, books chapters, or books which discuss the nascent “traditionalist” movements that originated during these years and how traditionalists resisted liturgical reform and ultimately rebelled in various ways in the decades which followed the promulgation of the revised Missal of Paul VI.[1]

Of the various movements, the most well-known example of this kind of resistance is surely that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Though Lefebvre had been quite supportive of the initial liturgical changes in 1965, he founded the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in 1970 in reaction to, and eventually rejection of, the revised Roman Missal of Paul VI.[2]

But there has not been, to my knowledge, any detailed effort to study how, and to what extent, resistance to the new liturgy between 1964-1968 manifested amongst the priests and laity in the vast number of normal diocesan parishes which were unaffiliated with formal traditionalist movements or associations.

The idea that there was any such resistance in normal parishes and dioceses, separate from traditionalist movements, may seem surprising. 

Given how prominently the existence and concerns of groups like the SSPX have featured in the life of the church since the council – even giving rise to multiple papal interventions[3] and the establishment of papally-approved religious institutes specifically dedicated to offering the traditional forms of the liturgy[4] – it is perhaps somewhat understandable that most scholarship and common narratives have simply read these traditionalist dynamics back into the interim period of 1964-1968. 

The prevailing assumptions seem to be that there was no widespread resistance to the interim liturgical changes, and that those laity and clergy who did attempt to resist were marginal in number and quickly formed or joined the various traditionalist movements to remove themselves from the common life of the established church.

This research will demonstrate that these common narratives stand in need of substantial revision. There were indeed many examples of active resistance in normal parishes and dioceses by members of the laity or clergy who did not like, and did not want, the liturgical reform – but who also did not join any traditionalist or breakaway movements.

While this kind of resistance happened around the world[5], my scope will be primarily limited (like the rest of this project) to English-speaking countries, particularly the United States and United Kingdom. I will, however, occasionally mention examples from around the world if they help to establish wider context and trends.

This article will explore resistance to the liturgical reform between 1964 and 1968, focused only on mentions of resistance in normal diocesan parishes and specifically excluding the well-known and well-documented history of the various traditionalist organizations in America, Great Britain, and Europe which emerged during this period.

This research will break new ground in offering a window into the experiences and activities of many layfolk and clergy who did not want the liturgical reform and did not want to go along with it. It will also provide additional context to the lay opinion surveys we reviewed in the previous article; the laity, and some clergy, did not only merely express their unhappiness or dislike of the liturgical reform via opinion polls. In some cases, they also actively resisted going along with the changes for as long as they could. 

Before I begin this survey of resistance to liturgical reform, it may be helpful to begin with a working definition. What kinds of words or actions qualify as “resistance”? 

For the purposes of this study, I have tried to take a reasonable and flexible approach. “Resistance” seems to be an appropriate label for a wide variety of responses and reactions which are loosely united by a common thread: some concrete action was taken – beyond merely expressing negative opinions – to slow down, ameliorate, avoid, alter, or in some way roll back the implementation of the liturgical reform.

Take the following list, for example:

All of these, I contend, are rightly identified as examples of active resistance to the liturgical reform. 

Most importantly, I will rely on the words used by contemporary Catholic sources from the period (diocesan newspapers, letters to the editor, bishops and priests, etc) to define and categorize “resistance.” If a priest or lay person describes “resistance” to the liturgical reform in their parish, I will take them at their word and classify it as such.

Lastly, it is important to note that unlike opinion polls, there were essentially no efforts made to quantify or systematically categorize records of resistance to the new liturgy. The most that can be done to explore this topic, therefore, is to assemble surviving mentions, testimonials, and other contemporary commentary into one place, in the hopes of amassing enough data points to glimpse wider trends.

Even before the first liturgical changes were implemented in November 1964, prominent churchmen at the highest levels expressed concerns about lay resistance to changes to the liturgy. Headlines appeared in June that Cardinal Albert Meyer of Chicago “foresees some resistance to liturgy changes.” Meyer informed his priests that “the upcoming liturgical changes may be difficult for some persons to accept” and reminded them the Council Fathers wanted the laity to be “motivated by understanding [of the new liturgy], not merely by obedience.”[6]

Speaking in August, Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta (an influential member of the Second Vatican Council’s Liturgical Commission and strong advocate for liturgical reform who would later become the head of the US Bishops’ liturgy committee) acknowledged that there was already “some resistance to the new changes.”[7]

Fig. 1 – The Baltimore Sun, August 29, 1964, page 6. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

In early November, before the official implementation of the very first liturgical changes, clerical commentator Rev. Gordon B. Wadhams labeled the laity who did not want the changes as “the missal-bound resistance.”[8]

Wadhams predicted that the lay attachment to using hand missals at Mass would be “just one, and by no means the least, of the resistances we are going to meet” and that “[i]t is not just the Anne Freemantles and the Evelyn Waughs among us who will find the new ways very upsetting; a large number of our people will.”[9]

The predicted resistance to the new liturgy was realized as the initial liturgical changes went into effect in November 1964. This prompted some bishops to intervene immediately in the hopes of minimizing or averting the worst of the opposition.

In England and Wales, at least seven Catholic bishops wrote Advent pastoral letters to be read during the first celebrations of the new liturgy. These letters sought to counteract strong resistance (what the US Bishop’s official news service described as “exceptional opposition”) and “urged their people to cooperate willingly”.[10]

Fig. 2 – The Catholic Missourian, December 13, 1964, page 4. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

Seeking to sympathize with his flock, Archbishop John Murphy of Cardiff wrote:

Others, like Bishop Cyril Restieaux of Plymouth, tried to encourage the laity to endure their unhappiness and accept the changes for the benefit of future Catholics who would surely like it more than they did in the moment: 

Perhaps less effective were well-meaning but clumsy attempts to convince lay Catholics that they were wrong to feel any unhappiness or offer resistance at all, like that of Bishop George Brunner of Middlesbrough: 

It is noteworthy that many clerics, commentators, and bishops publicly anticipated resistance to the  initial liturgical reforms on the eve of their adoption, attempted to forestall this resistance, and – most importantly – that these predictions of resistance were immediately realized. This demonstrates contemporary awareness and recognition that many layfolk were not demanding nor eagerly awaiting the changes and challenges modern narratives about the pre-conciliar situation.[14]

One key indicator of the opposition to the new liturgy by certain bishops and priests was how they chose to prepare their dioceses and parishes for the changes. Some bishops were fairly enthusiastic, engaged, and proactive with extensive programs for preparation and promotion; others were not. 

There were two main approaches used for preparing the laity for the changes. One was merely mechanical, informing the laity of the changes to the rubrics or the logistical differences in when they must stand or sit, etc; the other attempted to explain the deeper reasons for why the changes were occurring and to convince the laity to support them. 

Some bishops and dioceses opted to do nothing to prepare their flocks, choosing neither method. For those that did attempt to prepare people for the changes, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, the former approach (simple mechanical instruction) was far more common than the latter.[15]

An op-ed column by Gerard Sherry, managing editor of the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, reveals just how widespread feelings of reluctance and resistance were amongst the clergy immediately before the United States implemented the first liturgical changes in November 1964. The column was a cri du coeur from someone who embraced Archbishop of Atlanta Paul Hallinan’s enthusiastic vision for liturgical reform and “a new age of the Church.”[16]

With refreshing frankness and detail, Sherry lamented how many priests, bishops, and laity did not want the changes, did not want to go along with them, and did nothing to implement them or make them successful (emphasis added):

In early 1965, the phenomenon of clerical resistance, from both clergy and bishops, continued to be the subject of comment in diocesan newspapers. 

One opinion column from San Francisco made reference to “some church authorities on the local levels, in parish rectories and in diocesan chanceries, have been recalcitrant to implement the changing of old forms.”[18]

An editorial from Pittsburgh raised the same point: the laity’s unhappy reactions to the new liturgy were dismissed as “entertaining” but ultimately non-threatening, while resistance by the clergy was viewed as much more damaging to the entire post-conciliar project. The editorial notes that there are discussions in other publications about priests resisting the changes, some of whom were deliberately “foot-dragging and slowing the progress of liturgical change” while others were “even trying to sabotage the liturgical renewal altogether.”[19]

Other sources appear to independently confirm and corroborate these observations of early clerical resistance. A survey commissioned by US Catholic magazine estimated that at least 700 parishes throughout America deliberately chose not to introduce the new liturgical changes in November 1964, with some waiting until Lent of 1965 before implementing any changes, and others delaying until Lent 1966 or later.[20]

Some priests resisted by refusing to introduce any congregational participation (emphasis added):

This reluctance and resistance by priests and bishops was not merely an American phenomenon. Priests and bishops in other English-speaking countries were also unhappy with the changes and implemented them reluctantly and slowly.[22] The problem of resistance to the new liturgy quickly hit close to home even for the Vatican officials who were leading the liturgical reform.

Fig. 3 – The Georgia Bulletin, March 11, 1965, page 8. Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, the archbishop of Bologna, Italy, had been a longtime champion of the Liturgical Movement and had enjoyed glowing coverage and a steadily growing international profile in the pre-conciliar years for the liturgical progress in his diocese.[23] Lercaro was also the president of the Consilium, the body tasked with the responsibility of revising the liturgical rites following the Second Vatican Council. 

In March 1965, Lercaro was forced to address the “lack of obedience and resistance” to the liturgical reform which was occurring in his own diocese. Lercaro sharply criticized this resistance and said that “the negative reaction to the liturgical reform reveals a doctrinal disobedience and a phenomenon of ignorance.” He believed that those resisting the changes did so because of “the force of tradition and habit and the sense of nostalgia caused by contemplation of the past”.[24]

This was not a phenomenon isolated to Lercaro’s archdiocese. Contemporary news reports from “many parts of Italy” indicated a “reluctance on the part of the Italian clergy to adapt themselves to the changes in the liturgy.”[25]

In America, widespread resistance to the liturgical reforms – particularly by some bishops or priests – became more obvious as 1965 wore on and began to attract more public commentary. One letter to the editor from New Orleans summarized the situation: 

Writing in the official diocesan newspaper of the Diocese of Erie, columnist and former editor Rev. W. Lawrence Franklin decried the obstinate refusal of many parishes to adopt any of the new changes:

While the author’s comments indicate a widespread reluctance to adopt the new liturgy in parishes throughout the country, the specific mention of New York City is particularly interesting. The noticeable antipathy towards the initial liturgical changes by Cardinal Francis Spellman, as referenced by the mention of the ‘unmoved’ cathedral, continued to be obvious for years afterwards. Writing of Spellman in 1966, one priest reported: “Somehow I feel the Cardinal is not all for the new liturgy but goes along with it, because he is pretty much forced to.”[28]

This lack of enthusiasm by the hierarchy in New York resulted in certain – very public – jarring contrasts. When Pope Paul VI visited the United States in October 1965 for an historic address at the United Nations, he also celebrated Mass at Yankee Stadium for a vast crowd of 90,000 people.

Fig. 4 – A photo of Pope Paul VI’s historic Mass at Yankee stadium on October 4, 1965, from The Boston Globe, October 10, 1965, page 168. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

The Mass was held up as an exemplar of the liturgical reform: it was simple and without old-style pontifical pomp, utilized all the current vernacular permissions, and eschewed chant in favor of four simple English hymns at the entrance, offertory, communion, and recessional. It was praised by modern liturgists and commentators as “a liturgical success” and a model which should be used to inspire, or cajole, others to fall into line with the new liturgy:

Fig. 5 – Pages from the worship booklet used by the laity at Pope Paul VI’s mass at Yankee Stadium on October 4, 1965. Photo via the author.

Just two months later, St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York held a solemn pontifical Latin midnight Mass for Christmas Eve, something it would do again in 1967 and on other occasions.[30] The contrast between this traditional Latin Mass and the modern progressive vision of the liturgy shown in the papal Mass was evident to many at the time. One seminarian from Madison, Wisconsin, offered sharp criticism of the continued use of the Latin Mass and the obvious resistance by some prelates to going along with the new liturgy:

Priests who supported the liturgical reform openly discussed the lack of cooperation given by clerics who did not want to go along, or who were not as radical as liturgists desired. In late 1965, Rev. Andrew Greeley opined that perhaps the only way to implement the liturgical “revolution” was to take away control of implementing the new liturgy from parish pastors (who were resisting or reluctant) and give it over to younger clerics exclusively:

As 1965 turned into 1966, one can find various letters to the editor in diocesan newspapers which indicate a continuing trend of priests refusing to adopt any vernacular or implement the other initial liturgical changes.[33] In some cases, priests and parishes managed to hold out for an astonishingly long time.[34]

By March of 1965, resistance to the new liturgy was so widespread in Italy and elsewhere that Vatican Radio addressed the issue in two global broadcasts. I have not found transcripts of the original radio broadcast, but a contemporary news account described them in this way:

Fig. 6 – The Catholic Transcript, March 18, 1965, page 10. Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Resistance to the liturgical reforms continued throughout Europe in 1965. In August, one newspaper account stated that “[t]he liturgical reforms voted by the Council Fathers at the second session in 1963 have caused more turmoil and shouting than virtually any other subject thus far.”[36]

While emphasizing that the liturgical changes were supported by a majority of Catholics in Europe, the article revealed a notable trend of resistance throughout multiple countries including England, France, and the Netherlands.[37]

By contrast, the article emphasized that “only the German-language countries, where there has been a long tradition of widespread use of the vernacular in the liturgy, have the conciliar reforms been received without much reaction.” Despite the lack of strong resistance in German-speaking countries, it was observed that there were still those who adopted the changes less enthusiastically than others. The article noted that in Austria (which was described as “much more conservative” than Germany), St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna continued to offer a “traditional Mass” entirely in Latin with the priest celebrating ad orientem.[38]

The newspaper account also highlighted that “some resistance may be building up to further liturgical adaptation” due to a “desire to end [the] confusion and change.” The author hoped that the “liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council have carried the church much closer to that point of diminishing returns at which each succeeding change produces much less shock among many fewer persons,” so that the turmoil and resistance to the liturgical reform would finally cease.[39]

Throughout 1966 diocesan newspapers repeatedly mention “recalcitrant” priests and laity and  suggest a distinct lack of progress in implementing the changes. According to one account: “things seem to be at a standstill” regarding the implementation of the new liturgy in most parishes in Tacoma, Washington, even though “the priests have tried.”[40]

Fig. 7 – The Catholic Northwest Progress, November 18, 1966, page 4. Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Resistance to the new liturgy during these years endured and even increased in other anglophone countries like New Zealand. As recounted by Rev. Joseph Grayland, “by the end of 1966 reaction to the changes was beginning to grow. Letters to the editors of both Zealandia and Tablet, show the divergence of opinion on the success of the changes.”[41]

One account of lay resistance towards the end of 1966 is of particular interest. By this time, there was stiff, widespread, and active resistance against liturgical reform and liturgical inculturation by the laity in Africa. 

Proponents of the reform seemed baffled by, and unable to fully grasp, this unexpected rejection of the new liturgy – particularly because so much of the rationale for the liturgical changes was predicated on responding and adapting to the needs and desires of the laity. This resulted in commentary which bordered on the farcical, lamenting that liturgical adaptation “to meet the special needs of Africa” was being opposed by the laity and clergy of Africa.

Fig. 8 – The St. Louis Review, September 9, 1966. . Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

One news account from 1966 offers unique insight into the dynamics of lay resistance against top-down liturgical reform, something which applied far beyond the borders of Africa:

Lay resistance to the new liturgy grew and endured throughout 1965 and 1966 to such an extent that some parishes and dioceses began to re-introduce older-style Masses without vernacular – what was universally referred to as “the Latin Mass” – as an option.[43]

Masses in Latin were perhaps the most significant flash-point of all in the chaotic implementation of the  ‘interim’ liturgical changes. On paper, the liturgical reform had merely made vernacular permissible in the liturgy rather than mandatory. 

Various people would raise this point, over and over again, in the face of maximalist demands for the vernacular and the elimination of Latin. Before the introduction of the changes, some layfolk could not even imagine the possibility that priests would need eventually need permission to offer the Mass in Latin:

Yet in that heady and chaotic time, the actual text of the conciliar decrees and subsequent instructions seemed to be insufficient in the mind of those who were implementing the reform. Even things which were totally absent from any conciliar document – like the practice of receiving Communion while standing – were viewed as crucial and sometimes obligatory elements of the liturgical reform by many in the hierarchy, even by the pope.[45]

It is likely for this reason that desiring or offering a Latin Mass quickly became seen by many liturgists and bishops involved in the reform as the preeminent sign of resistance to the Second Vatican Council. 

Yet, from essentially the very beginning of the liturgical changes – even before the founding of any nascent traditionalist movements – some bishops and priests wanted to allow the Latin Mass to exist alongside the new revised liturgy. 

Before the introduction of the first liturgical changes in Australia, Cardinal Norman Gilroy of the Archdiocese of Sydney announced that each parish would be required to offer one Latin Mass each Sunday.[46]

Fig. 9 – NCWC News Service, July 7, 1964, wire copy (foreign) page 4. Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

On December 4, 1964 (just one week after the implementation of the very first liturgical changes!) Bishop Russell McVinney of Providence, Rhode Island, decreed that all Sunday and Holy Day Masses at or before 8am would remain in Latin throughout the diocese.[47]

Bishop McVinney even chose to offer the 8am Latin Mass himself at his cathedral every Sunday in order to support those who disliked the changes. He did so, in his own words, “because of my respect for these [members of the laity] who find it almost impossible to make the adjustments called for by the new liturgy.”[48]

That same month, Bishop Henry Grimmelsman of Evansville, Indiana, likewise ordered that one Latin Mass be retained each Sunday.[49]

In February 1965, Bishop Edward Ellis of Nottingham, England, went on record as saying he believed that “one Mass on Sunday should be in Latin, to keep alive the knowledge of the Latin Mass.” Reporting on these comments, the editors of The Tablet clarified that “[i]n this he is far from being an isolated figure among the bishops.”[50]

Indeed, such was the extent of this opinion amongst the English bishops – and such was the strength of the opposition amongst the laity – that a number of English dioceses seem to have required parishes to begin offering at least some Latin Masses again by the late spring of 1965. 

This widespread reintroduction of the Latin Mass in England does not seem to have been widely reported on, but can be reconstructed based on a few mentions in news articles as well as letters from the laity.[51] One layman, who strongly supported the liturgical changes, wrote a lengthy letter to the editor in protest of this change, described the situation as of May 1, 1965:

By late 1965, evidence of such “backsliding” was being noticed in America as well. Some parish priests, acting on their own in response to lay resistance, began to undo or rollback some of the liturgical changes.[53] In the words of one lay person who supported the new liturgy:

By the end of 1965, there was a general feeling that the adoption of the new liturgy was stalling amid persistent resistance, general lack of enthusiasm, and a very uneven implementation from diocese to diocese and parish to parish:

By early 1966 it seems that trends of resistance and unhappiness had reached an inflection point and many priests and bishops began to re-introduce at least some options for the Latin Mass in response. This was not an isolated trend in only a few parishes – one contemporary estimate even suggested that 60% of parishes on the West Coast offered at least one Latin Mass each Sunday.[56]

Some bishops circulated questionnaires or surveys of their priests to determine if there was a desire for Mass in Latin. Others issued statements signaling their openness to granting permission or supporting the idea of the Latin Mass.[57] Still others established certain parishes as a designated location for regular Latin Masses in their dioceses.

In March of 1966, Rev. Frederick McManus – who played a critical role in directing and implementing the new liturgy in America – stated in an interview that “there is no reason why a parish should not schedule a Latin Mass if the people want it.”[58]

A few months later, the Bishops of England and Wales issued a statement which seemed to support and request that additional Latin Masses be introduced or promoted: “Every encouragement should be given to retaining the use of Latin in the Mass where it is possible, fitting, and convenient. Steps must be taken to see that knowledge of the Latin Mass is not lost.”[59]

Fig. 10 – The Boston Globe, July 9, 1966, page 16. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

In June, Cardinal Lawrence Shehan of Baltimore made national headlines by granting permission for the re-establishment of Latin Masses. Shehan, who was referred to by contemporary Catholic publications as “a leading liberal prelate at Vatican II,”[60] gave a statement saying: “[s]ome of the faithful, however, seem not to have been able to adjust to the new order … I have requested our liturgical commission to give consideration to the needs of this group” and instructed parish priests to petition the commission for permission, if they deemed it necessary, “for the good of souls.”[61]

Shortly after this news from Baltimore, the Boston Globe reported that Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston had likewise authorized Latin Masses “if the circumstances warranted it.” Moreover, it was reported that many parishes throughout the Archdiocese of Boston continued to have at least one daily Latin Mass and one Latin Mass on Sundays.[62]

In November 1966, yet another high-profile concession was granted for the Latin Mass. Archbishop John Dearden of Detroit, who was also the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, established a regular Mass in Latin at St. Aloysius parish, a church physically connected to the diocesan chancery building. Dearden said he was taking this step for those “who would feel more at home with it [the Latin Mass]” and those who “have difficulty in sharing meaningfully in the English liturgy.”[63]

Cardinal John Heenan instituted a regular Sunday Latin ‘low’ Mass at Westminster Cathedral, London, in January 1967. This replaced a formerly vernacular 5:30pm Mass and was attended by a congregation of “impressive” size.[64]

In April of 1967, Archbishop Philip Hannan of New Orleans established a regular Sunday Latin Mass at St. Patrick’s church for the benefit of those “who do not understand English, or for those whose preference for Latin is based upon a feeling of greater ease.”[65]

That summer, Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington, quietly granted permission to all parish pastors to the Latin Mass “if their parishioners ask for it.”[66]

The Latin Mass once again grabbed national headlines in late 1967 by securing another marquee billing. Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia gave permission for the introduction of a weekly Sunday Latin Mass in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul beginning in September, in response to “a number of requests.”[67]

Lay desire for the Latin Mass continued to remain strong around the world, even as more and more vernacular permissions were granted (e.g. for the entire Mass to be said in the vernacular) and even in places where there was not much intense negative reaction to the liturgical changes.

Germany serves as a particularly illustrative example. In the fall of 1967, the Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy, one of the premier German survey research firms, conducted a poll which revealed that substantial numbers of the laity across all social classes supported Latin in addition to the new liturgy.

A report on the survey reminded readers that “it must be remembered that the vernacular is by no means new to the liturgy in Germany and Austria”  and that “the dialogue Mass in the vernacular completely dominates the German scene.”[68]

Despite this, the survey showed that large percentages of people in Germany still wanted the opportunity to attend the Latin Mass as an option – even though they did not strongly dislike the new vernacular liturgy:

One report on the findings said in summary: “These statistics come as a surprise. One had generally not expected in Germany such continued interest in and fidelity to Latin.”[69]

Amidst lay resistance to the liturgical reform, there emerged a surprising strain of commentary from layfolk who preferred the new vernacular liturgy: their public support for the Latin Mass. 

In both America and the British Isles, a number of individuals, organizations, and even newspaper editorials who liked and supported the liturgical reform went on record to express their support for coexistence with the Latin Mass. Indeed, the laity seemed much more willing to ‘live and let live’ than members of the clergy or hierarchy.

Shortly after the promulgation of the Liturgical Constitution, but months before any liturgical changes had been implemented, one letter to the editor proposed a compromise that would allow both forms of the liturgy to permanently coexist:

In early 1965, after the introduction of the first changes, one supporter of the new liturgy suggested the following:

Even the Vernacular Society of Great Britain – an organization which had worked since the mid-1940s to secure the introduction of vernacular liturgy – supported the retention of Latin in the Mass! At their general meeting on April 30, 1965, the society took a vote on whether or not to cease operations now that their goals had been realized, and noted that “everyone was anxious for the preservation of Latin in the Roman rite.” In order to achieve this, members of the society appeared to support the idea of retaining some (but not daily) Latin Masses.[72]

In May 1965, the newly-formed Latin Mass Society of England and Wales held their first public meeting to outline their goals and solicit support.  The Universe, a national British Catholic newspaper, sharply criticized the Latin Mass Society and remarks made at the meeting. Nevertheless, the newspaper agreed that “Catholics should have the opportunity every Sunday to hear Mass in Latin if they wish.”[73]

The UK Catholic Herald newspaper similarly called the Latin Mass Society ‘misguided’ but nevertheless supported the continued existence of the Latin Mass: 

One lay church musician from Virginia proposed alternating between English and Latin every other Sunday (something that was done with great success, for example, at Old St. Mary’s in Chicago until 1967):

In December 1965 and January 1966, the Archdiocese of St. Louis initiated what it called “Operation Renewal.” At the time, it was referred to as a “Little Council” but in modern parlance would be a clear example of what Pope Francis described as ‘synodality.’ As part of Operational Renewal, more than 32,000 members of the laity in 150 parishes met in discussion groups with their priests for several weeks to share their opinions, complaints, hopes, and requests for the post-conciliar church.

As part of these sessions, several requests were made for the reintroduction of ‘silent’ Masses, Latin Masses, and Masses not facing the people. These requests did not come from intransigent reactionary cliques; on the contrary, they came from parishes which seemed to embody a ‘live-and-let-live’ approach to the different parts of their congregations. For example: one suburban parish requested a silent Latin Mass option but also requested permission to celebrate “guitar-folk-song” liturgies for their teenagers.[76]

Even into late 1967 we continue find members of the laity who support the existence of the Latin Mass as an option even though they personally do not want to attend: 

Even the editors of the The Tablet of London (a publication which became known for a distinctly progressive viewpoint) repeatedly praised the traditional Latin form of the Mass and made multiple pleas for coexistence with the new vernacular liturgy:

By 1967, liturgical unrest was growing rather than diminishing. Diocesan newspapers during this time present a muddled and even chaotic picture: in addition to priests and laity who were unhappy because they did not want the liturgical changes at all, there were new emerging factions of priests and laity who were unhappy because they wanted changes which were more radical than those being promulgated by the Vatican or national episcopal conferences.

The situation by this time seems to have metastasized – in America at least – into two camps. Those who did not want the new liturgy were branded as “the resistance” by Archbishop of Atlanta Paul Hallinan, chairman of the US Bishops’ liturgy commission. Conversely, Hallinan labeled those who agitated for more radical liturgical changes as “the rebels”.

When Pope Paul VI released his Instruction On Music In The Liturgy, Hallinan wrote in his diocesan newspaper that he hoped the Instruction would help to end this stalemate of widespread unhappiness and resistance and dissent on all sides: “[t]he new Instruction is not just a landmark in sacred music. It might well be our last great hope for peace in the cold liturgical war now being waged.”[79]

Fig. 11 – The Georgia Bulletin, August 31, 1967, front page. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

Beyond the general upheaval, malaise, and unhappiness of this period, mentions of active resistance to the changes – “small pockets of resistance to the new liturgy” and “those priests and people who resist” – continue to be found in diocesan newspapers in 1967, but less frequently than in prior years. 

This seems to suggest that active attempts to resist the implementation of the new liturgy began to decrease in 1967, after several years of stiff and widespread resistance. 

Opinion surveys from 1966 and beyond, as discussed in the previous installment in this series, demonstrate that notable and fairly stable percentages of the laity continued to be unhappy with the revised liturgy in 1967 and beyond. Thus, the decline in active resistance to the new liturgy in normal parishes cannot be said to be a result of increasing enthusiasm for the liturgical changes.

 Instead, there seems to be several likely explanations for why active resistance began to subside, even modestly, after 1967:

The sense one gets from reading primary materials from these years is that resistance by diocesan clerics and laity alike begins to give way to resignation and – most of all – an overwhelming desire for the changes to stop. 

This sentiment even began to be expressed publicly by bishops around this time! The most prominent and dramatic example of such episcopal resistance occurred at the 1967 Synod of Bishops.

As part of the very first post-conciliar Synod of Bishops, held at the Vatican between September 29 and October 29, 1967, nearly 200 bishops from around the world were shown a demonstration of what was then labeled “the Normative Mass.” 

The normative Mass was a proposal from the Consilium (the official body tasked with revising the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council) for a new and completely revised rite of Mass, dramatically simplified and re-written, which would replace the existing liturgy of the Roman Rite.[82]

The US Bishops’ official news service published extensive coverage of the 1967 Synod in general and the discussions about the proposed “future liturgy” in particular. The initial reactions of the bishops to this proposed new rite of the Mass are illuminating: they demonstrate beyond doubt that by 1967 there was a clear desire by many prominent members of the hierarchy to bring all liturgical changes to a swift end. 

Fig. 12 – NC News Service, October 24, 1967, wire copy (foreign) page 10.  Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

To my knowledge, some of these quotes by the bishops who attended the Synod have never before been published. Therefore, it seems worth quoting from the news account at some length. To begin, the  US Bishops’ news service summarized the general reactions to the proposed liturgical changes this way (emphasis added):

Many bishops disliked the proposed new Mass, with varying levels of intensity. Archbishop of Philadelphia Cardinal John Krol said that the Mass demonstration evoked “far more enthusiasm on the part of those who formulated it than on the part of those who witnessed it.”[84]

Archbishop of Birmingham George Dwyer, himself a member of the Consilium, publicly admitted afterwards: “[a]fter seeing the demonstration Mass on the following day many of the bishops were dissatisfied with it, an opinion which I share.”[85]

Archbishop Joseph Cordeiro of Karachi, Pakistan, “criticized several aspects of the [proposed] Mass” and warned of the dangers if the liturgical reform “was not kept within defined limits.”[86]

The US Bishops’ news report included a wide variety of frank comments and complaints from various bishops: 

Cardinal Antonio Samorè, who would later be appointed by Pope Paul VI as Prefect of the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, made a strong intervention in reaction to the proposed changes and argued for the permanent retention of the Latin Mass as an option: 

Fig. 13 – Photo of Paul VI addressing the first session of the 1967 Synod of Bishops. From The Tidings, October 13, 1967, front page  Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

In addition to expressing negative reactions to the proposed new rite of the Mass, many bishops at the Synod spoke out against the ongoing liturgical reform and demanded that the liturgical changes be brought to an end, once and for all. 

Bishop after bishop lamented the endless stream of changes, authorization for new innovations, and lack of anything resembling a proposed ‘final’ state. As reported by the US Bishops’ news service (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most significant criticism during the Synod came from Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, the Vatican Secretary of State. In response to the proposed new rite of the Mass, Cicognani made an impassioned intervention arguing that the liturgical reform should be stopped. 

In the words of one account (emphasis added):

Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the Consilium, later recounted that “many of the [Synod] Fathers heard alarm bells ringing when the very Secretary of State, Cardinal G. Amleto Cicognani, said his ‘Enough!’ to liturgical changes, ‘lest the faithful be confused.’”[94]

Archbishop George Dwyer, in his role as a member of the Consilium and spokesman during the liturgical demonstration, summarized the mood and opinion of the Synod with a plea for avoiding the most radical reforms, achieving stability, and ending the liturgical changes as quickly as possible:

Another English bishop, Gordon Wheeler of Leeds, expressed a similar sentiment. In a brief introduction penned for a new hand missal for the laity which was published just weeks after the synod, Wheeler’s fatigue and resignation shines through fairly laconic prose. In conclusion, he wrote: “I commend this Missal for use, therefore, until the new (and we hope final) version of the Mass appears.”[97]

Bugnini’s own account of the Synod offers crucial insight into how negatively the Synod fathers viewed the proposal for the new rite of the Mass and their general unhappiness about the ongoing reforms:

In general, Bugnini and other members of the Consilium viewed the results as a rebuke and damaging to the cause of liturgical reform. Bugnini summarized the failure at the Synod in the following way:

Returning home from the Synod, it seemed that some bishops – including Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster – were convinced that the resistance and interventions of the Synod of bishops against the radical proposal for a new Mass rite would result in a long pause before any new liturgical changes were issued.[101]

Fig. 14 – The Tidings, December 15, 1967, front page. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

In his 1967 Advent pastoral letter, published shortly after the conclusion of the Synod, Heenan expressed his sincere hope that there would be no additional changes to the liturgy for many years:

These reactions of so many bishops at the Synod was considered to be a “public disavowal of the Consilium’s work” which shocked Pope Paul VI, who had not been able to attend the demonstration Mass or the following debates by the Synod fathers due to illness.[103]

The pope had not realized that the Consilium’s proposals were so far removed from the opinions of the bishops. The disastrous outcome at the Synod resulted in the pope attempting to take more direct control over the liturgical reform. In January 1968, he removed Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro from his position as president of the Consilium and asked him to resign as bishop of Bologna. The pope simultaneously removed Cardinal Arcadio Larraona from his position as prefect of the Congregation of Rites. Paul VI appointed Cardinal Benno Gut to replace both Lercaro and Larraona in both of these now-vacant positions.[104]

All of this was viewed by liturgists and those most closely associated with the liturgical reform as a serious defeat for their cause. It is likely for this reason that, in some cases, mention of the seriously negative reactions of the curial cardinals and Synod fathers were excluded – seemingly deliberately – from Catholics news coverage of the synod.[105]

Fig. 15 – Collage of Rev. Andrew Greeley’s column from The Catholic Advocate, February 1, 1968, page 8. Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Nevertheless, news of this liturgical defeat eventually spread and some advocates of liturgical reform went public to express their horror. The reaction of Rev. Andrew Greeley – one of the most prominent clerical commentators in the English-speaking world – was extraordinary and is worth quoting at some length (emphasis added):

Greeley’s comments are representative of a wider trend which had emerged throughout 1967. As resistance to the liturgical reforms grew and the process of implementation stalled, those who were the strongest advocates of the reform became increasingly angry, fearful, and impatient. It seemed more and more likely that the entire project of liturgical reform would falter and fail before any of the larger more radical proposals could be realized. In the words of one clerical commentator:

The words and responses of the bishops who participated in the 1967 Synod in Rome unequivocally demonstrate that a substantial number of bishops within the Roman curia and around the world, both individually and as representatives of their various national bishops conferences, were not asking for (and were unhappy with) the additional liturgical reforms being pursued by the Consilium. 

The testimony of the bishops in their own words revealed that many of the laity – and many bishops themselves! – were exhausted, confused, and disturbed by the liturgical changes which had taken place between 1964 and 1967. 

It was for this reason that bishop after bishop pleaded for the liturgical changes to be stopped as soon as possible, and why they hoped that their resistance at the Synod would result in a ‘very long’ pause before any future changes were considered.

Fig. 16 – The St. Louis Review, March 1, 1968, page 9. Scan via the Catholic News Archive, public domain.

So widespread was this feeling that one report from Rome said that the Synod “indicate[d] a sizeable and solid core of resistance to the principle of further change.”[108]

A few months later, Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta publicly lamented that “great majority of American bishops would favor a halt to further liturgical change” and estimated that only “30 to 40” out of the 220 American bishops were “top-rate modern renewal men” who were fully committed to the progressive vision of renewal.[109]

All of this offers crucial insight into how the “interim” post-conciliar liturgical changes were experienced, understood, received, and accepted (or not) by both laity and clergy around the world. It also corroborates and provides critical additional context for the widespread trend of lay, clerical, and episcopal “resistance” that we surveyed above.[110]

In light of all this, one may well wonder: if there was such widespread resistance to the liturgical reform (as is clearly documented in so many contemporary accounts) … why was there not a greater and more permanent rebellion? 

Why did the resistance – both lay and clerical – ultimately fail to stop the implementation of additional liturgical reforms? Why didn’t more of the laity ultimately decide to express their ongoing unhappiness through open rejection (e.g. leaving the regular practice of the faith, joining breakaway traditionalist groups, etc)? If a “great majority” of bishops wanted a halt to further liturgical changes, why did they ultimately continue to implement future reforms?

There seem to be several factors at play, each of which provides a partial answer to these questions: (1) the way liturgical reform progressed via bureaucracy, (2) the fundamental reality of obedience, and (3) the lack of any other viable options.

The 1967 Synod of Bishops offers a tantalizing and compelling glimpse into dynamics between bishops, episcopal conferences, and the offices of the Roman curia that otherwise would remain hidden. These dynamics, I suggest, offer potential answers to the questions above – namely, why and how did the liturgical reform continue forwards even though many bishops were unhappy with the innovations in the liturgy and wanted it to stop?

In part, liturgical progress seems to have been facilitated by the mechanisms of episcopal bureaucracy and how these subsumed and overrode the preferences and opinions of any individual bishop.

The Synod revealed a sharp divergence between how the various bishops conferences around the world had voted regarding the proposed liturgical reforms and how the individual bishops (who were members of, and representing, those conferences) voted themselves.

The national episcopal conferences had been sent the proposed liturgical reforms in advance of the Synod. In a number of cases, an episcopal conference had responded by mail and consented to one of the Consilium’s proposals but the same proposal was rejected by the actual bishop(s) from that episcopal conference who attended the Synod in person:

The English bishops serve as a particularly poignant example of this dynamic:

Having received the Consilium’s liturgical proposals in advance, the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales allegedly indicated that it had unanimously accepted the proposed new rite of the Mass. More than this, the conference even issued a statement at the Synod that emphasized acceptance and deferral to the Consilium’s preferences: 

However, many individual members of the English bishops’ conference who attended the Synod expressed their opposition to the proposed new rite and asked for the end of the liturgical reform. Even Archbishop George Dwyer – himself a member of the Consilium, a longtime advocate for liturgical reform, and a spokesman for the English bishops – did not approve the proposed new rite of the Mass at the Synod![113]

It was for these reasons that Rev. Annibale Bugnini and the Consilium had complained about and dismissed the votes of the Synod fathers as essentially irrelevant. On December 10, 1967, the Consilium presented a report on the Synod to the pope, who had not been able to participate or witness the discussions of the liturgy. The purpose of the report, according to Bugnini, was to give the pope “a bird’s-eye view of the voting at the Synod and be able to grasp its importance and value.”[114]

The Consilium began the report by offering several “observations” to the pope, in the hopes of neutralizing the ramifications of the negative Synod votes. The first of these observations was as follows (emphasis added):

It seems, therefore, that the modern mechanisms of episcopal bureaucracy, sub-committees, and delegated assignments helped to facilitate the quick approval of proposals from the Consilium – even in situations where many individual bishops themselves personally rejected the idea. 

Criticisms of the hierarchy for operating in this way – bishops abdicating their own duty and authority to committees which aped the nameless and faceless internal procedures of a large corporation and produced ‘statements to shareholders’ on fait accompli decisions – were even made publicly during these years.[117]

This dynamic and its potential implications seem to deserve further exploration, particularly in light of the fact that episcopal conferences are in large part merely administrative apparatuses of conveniences possessing very limited legal, juridical, canonical authority – less so than local episcopal synods or plenary councils, and far less than the full power and authority entrusted directly to the diocesan bishop.

Another dynamic at play with respect to the progress of the liturgical reform over and against the wishes of many bishops is the reality of obedience. This may seem exceedingly obvious, but it does warrant brief mention: the vast majority of bishops considered that liturgical reform – the particulars on what was produced, how it was implemented, how long it would proceed, etc – was ultimately the decision of the pope and that they owed him obedience regarding whatever he promulgated or approved.

Based on their own testimonies, it seems that very few bishops who attended the council and voted for the Liturgical Constitution were aware of the details of the liturgical reform. Almost none of them knew of what the Consilium was doing or had any opportunity to voice their opinions before the various reforms were promulgated by the pope. 

The first chance some bishops had to accept or reject proposed liturgical changes was at the Synod of Bishops in 1967! In the words of Bishop Alfonso Beretta of Warangal, India: “Liturgy was the subject matter of the first session [of the council]. Then the whole thing [was] handed over to the experts. Thereafter I never heard about it again during the Council, except towards the end of it [during the Synod] when a Bishop called it the ‘mini Mass.’”[118] 

Some bishops, like Archbishop Philip Hannan of New Orleans, even stated that they had not wanted to turn the liturgical reform over to a body like the Consilium at all: “[m]any of us did not intend to delegate authority to the experts to reform the liturgy. There was considerable resentment by many of the bis[h]ops … because we felt that some of the changes were not rooted in good theological reasons.”[119]

Other bishops had been supportive of the ideas of some liturgical reform during the council, but came to regret their vote once they saw what actually was being implemented. In the words of Bishop Clemente Isnard of Nova Friburgo, Brazil: “[i]n the same way that the spirit of the Council has developed, there has been a development of reaction…. An important group of bishops who had voted ‘placet’ changed their minds when they realised the consequences of their vote.”[120]

Yet despite everything, many bishops explicitly confirmed that they viewed the matter of liturgical reform as something they had to obey no matter their own preferences or desires for their own dioceses: 

Perhaps the most explicit formulation of this sense of obedience against their own wishes was given by Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster in early 1969, months before the announcement of the revised Missale Romanum (emphasis added):

Lastly, I wish to consider the resistance of laity. We have seen that there was a truly widespread, unexpected, and enduring pattern of resistance and opposition to the liturgical reform from layfolk in parishes and dioceses around the globe. We have also seen that many bishops were seriously concerned about the damage and confusion that the liturgical reform was causing for the laity.

As the liturgical changes continued to move forward despite the opposition and against the desires of the bishops, why didn’t more of the laity resist to the point of abandoning the regular practice of the faith or joining a formal traditionalist movement? Why did their resistance ultimately remain fairly modest – ultimately remaining in their parishes and dioceses, even if unhappy and unable to like the reform?

Contemporary sources suggest the answer was fairly straightforward: the majority of the laity, even if deeply unhappy about the liturgical changes, didn’t believe there were any other options. They would never leave, and so there was simply nothing they could do. They could resist, they would be unhappy, and they would be forced to “live with it.”

One summary of this dynamic was penned by Dale Francis, for decades a nationwide columnist and editor at Our Sunday Visitor. In February 1965, Francis was asked by The Critic magazine to answer the question ‘how are Catholics reacting to the new Liturgy?’ 

His response, titled “The Mood of the Laity: Confused, Frustrated, Bewildered” is an extraordinary and insightful account of the mind and thoughts of the laity in reaction to the liturgical changes. It is worth reproducing a lengthy excerpt (emphasis added):

Commentary like that of Dale Francis above provides valuable context to the large array of other material we have already reviewed – accounts of lay unhappiness, opinion survey data, and records of opposition and active resistance to the new liturgy between 1964 and 1968. It seems that a substantial number of lay Catholics disliked the new liturgy and thought it was a mistake, but they liked the idea of leaving the Church even less.

This analysis offers a challenge and corrective to conventional accounts of the very first liturgical changes and how they were implemented and received between 1964 and 1967. This article has demonstrated that, contrary to common assumptions and the lack of mention in existing scholarship, there was widespread resistance to the implementation of liturgical changes between 1964 and 1967. This resistance happened in normal parish and diocesan settings and was engaged in by notable numbers of the laity, a surprising number of parish priests, and even some bishops. All of this resistance was separate from the handful of small traditionalist organizations which began to establish themselves in 1965 and 1966 and which have been discussed in detail elsewhere.

While the specific details of the resistance varied from place to place, a clear common thread unites the many examples we have reviewed here: all of these acts of resistance were designed to slow down, delay, ameliorate, avoid, alter, or in some way roll back the implementation of the liturgical reform. 

The strength and scale of this resistance was striking and endured or even increased through 1967. Based on the frequency of mention in contemporary commentary and other materials, it seems that active resistance in normal parishes and dioceses began to decrease after 1967. 

It seems possible and even probably that this was due to the interplay of several factors: (1) some of the resisting laity stopped attending Mass, or at least attending regularly, during these years; (2) some of the resisting laity were sufficiently accommodated by the reintroduction of Latin Masses in their communities; (3) many of the resisting laity, priests, and bishops began to resign themselves to merely hoping that the liturgical reform would stop as soon as possible.

Wrapped up in the trend of resistance from the very beginning was a desire to maintain access to the Latin Mass as an option alongside the revised liturgy. This desire, which could perhaps be labeled the ‘peaceful coexistence’ approach, received broad support amongst the laity – there were even many supporters of the new liturgy who went on public record as wanting the Latin Mass to be retained. We have also seen that it was precisely the strength, growth, and endurance of this resistance which resulted in the survival or reintroduction of in many dioceses throughout the English-speaking world by 1966 and 1967. 

Most importantly of all, this research reveals that there were many in the church – many laity and priests, and even a shocking number of bishops – who were deeply unhappy, scandalized, exhausted, and disillusioned with the liturgical reform by late 1967. These bishops were not asking for further changes – they instead wanted the liturgical reform stopped, once and for all, and as soon as possible.

The reactions of various bishops between 1964 and 1967, and particularly at the 1967 Synod in Rome, indicate that very few bishops were aware – before 1967 – that members of the Consilium had as their ultimate goal an entirely new order of the Mass or revised Roman Missal. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that prior to October 1965, even Pope Paul VI himself was not aware that the Consilium was planning a revision of the order of the Mass!

On October 20 and 22, the Consilium celebrated two private demonstration Masses of the proposed new rite. Shortly afterwards, news of these experiments leaked to the public and provoked a swift reaction.[127] In response, the pope requested that the Consilium to inform him of what reforms they were pursuing:

In the face of this reaction to the proposed new rite in 1965, the Consilium halted efforts to implement it immediately. The Consilium continued to work on the revised Ordo Missae but took care to do so privately and internally. It was not until the 1967 Synod of Bishops that the proposal was shared with bishops for the first time.[129]

This adds further context to, and helps clarify, what was discussed in the conclusion to the first part of this series – that in January 1966 the Consilium explicitly denied, in print, that they were working on “an impending reformation of the Order of the Mass” or “a definitive renewal of the entire Missal.” We can now see that the Consilium had been indeed working on precisely those reforms, without the knowledge of the council fathers or even the pope, but that strong early resistance to the proposals forced them to remain private until a more opportune future occasion presented itself.

This is the end of Part 3 of this series, The “New Mass” of 1964: Popular reception of the first post-conciliar liturgical changes. Links to the other parts of the series can be found here: Main Page, Series Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, and the Series Conclusion.

[1] See, for example: Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass (St. Marys: Angelus Press, 2009); Yves Chiron, Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2018); Stuart Chessman, Faith of Our Fathers: A Brief History of Catholic Traditionalism in the United States (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2022); Yves Chiron, Between Rome & Rebellion: A History of Catholic Traditionalism with special attention to France (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2024); and Aurelio Porfiri, The Right Hand of the Lord is Exalted: A History of Catholic Traditionalism from Vatican II to Traditionis Custodes (Manchester: Sophia Institute Press, 2024).

[2] For a brief overview of the early history Society of St. Pius X, given from their perspective, see: Rev. Ramon Angles, “A Short History of the SSPX,” from The Angelus January (January 1996).

[3] For example, the 1984 circular letter Quattuor abhinc annos sent by John Paul II to the presidents of each episcopal conference, or the 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei by the same pope.

[4] Several priestly societies and religious institutes “of pontifical right” have been established which are exclusively dedicated to offering the traditional form of the Mass, most notably is the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter which was founded in 1988 by 12 former members of the SSPX.

[5] In the Diocese of Cuernavaca in Mexico, Bishop Sergio Méndez Arceo undertook many sweeping progressive reforms and efforts at modernization in key areas of Catholic life – liturgical, devotional, catechetical, etc. These changes were strongly protested and resisted by the laity in the diocese. Some of the most ferocious resistance came from “indigenous-descended and indigenous-identified communities” who inhabited “remote, rural, and economically marginalized pueblos” and experienced “the unwelcome imposition of conciliar reforms”  as “as a second [Spanish] conquest.” This widespread resistance and “rebellion” occurred at a local level and was not part of traditionalist organizations – indeed, it would take until 1975 for associations to form between the protesting laity in Cuernavaca and Marcel Lefebvre’s traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X. Even after this, there were sizeable portions of the laity who did not involve themselves with any traditionalist or breakaway movements but who continued to dislike the newer liturgical forms (“in truth few, if any, actually preferred them”). For more, see Jennifer Scheper Hughes, “Traditionalist Catholicism and Liturgical Renewal in the Diocese of Cuernavaca, Mexico,” in Catholics in the Vatican II Era: Local Histories of a Global Event (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp 64-85.

[6] See The Catholic Transcript, June 4, 1964, page 20 and “Cardinal Meyer Foresees Problems with New Liturgy,” The Catholic Standard and Times, June 5, 1964, page 15.

[7] “Says All Must Join In Liturgy Renewal,” in NCWC News Service , August 25, 1964, wire copy (domestic) page 12.

[8] Rev. Gordon B. Wadhams, “On ‘Missal-Bound’ Resistance,” The Catholic Transcript, November 5, 1964, page 4.

[9] Wadhams, “Resistance,” page 4.

[10] “Ask Cooperation In English Liturgy,” NCWC News Service , December 1, 1964, wire copy (foreign) page 4.

[11] “Ask Cooperation,” page 4.

[12] “Ask Cooperation,” page 5.

[13] “Ask Cooperation,” page 5.

[14] It seems to be the modern consensus that the vast majority of the laity were eagerly desiring vernacular liturgy and modest liturgical reforms which enabled better understanding and participation. To give one example: “The most important [point] is that the speed and enthusiasm with which Sacrosanctum Concilium’s several ‘permissions’ were taken up–most obviously those concerning vernacular languages and musical styles–rather suggests that there was a great deal of latent demand and indeed a widespread agreement that the status quo was in need of some renewing.” See Shaun Blanchard & Stephen Bullivant, Vatican II: A Very Short Introduction  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023), page 50.

[15] One letter to the editor from England describes this dynamic and how a lack of preparation negatively impacted the laity’s opinion or openness to the New Liturgy: “The purpose of my letter [is] to express regret that certain steps had not been taken which I think might have resulted in more support for and interested in the forthcoming liturgical changes. When I suggested that there should have been ‘an adequate period of preparation and instruction’ I did not have in mind instructions about which prayers to recite in English, when to stand or kneel and so on – for that the next week or two should surely suffice – but a series of explanations from the pulpits of the reasons why these changes are being brought in. Since the publication of the Council’s decree last December there has been ample time for this to be done. Has it been attempted in the majority of places? There are grounds for thinking it has not. Perhaps Fr. Hill does not realise how bewildered and unhappy some of the laity are[.] See “Letters to the Editor: Unpromising start to the vernacular,” The Tablet, November 7, 1964, pp 1269-1270.

[16] Gerard E. Sherry, “Liturgical Renewal: Bishop Is The Father,” The Georgia Bulletin, November 26, 1964, page 4.

[17] Sherry, “Liturgical Renewal,” page 4.

[18] John O’Connor, “The Battlefield,” in The Monitor, January 7, 1965, page 6.

[19] “Foot-dragging,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, February 4, 1965, page 4. The column also includes the following observation which deserves to be recounted, as it demonstrates such complaints or accusations about obedience to the Council in nearly unchanged form have existed from the very beginning of the first liturgical changes: “We have known reluctant priests to do some pretty neat broken-field running through the articles of the Constitution on the Liturgy, side-stepping some of the most significant liturgical innovations as mere ‘suggestions’ of the Fathers of the Council, to be used or not.”

[20] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 6.

[21] “Tell father we’re participating,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, May 8, 1965, page 18. Examples of such resistance by priests were documented throughout the nation. Take, for example, this account from the Archdiocese of Newark:

“There are large parishes in Bergen where a congregational hymn is yet to be sung, where a layman is yet to read scripture, where the priest continues to offer mass with his back to the people. These pastors have chosen to go with the minimum established by the Most. Rev. Thomas A. Boland – thereby fulfilling the letter of Archdiocesan law. […] Perhaps from a third to half of Bergen’s 300,000 Catholics have not fasted the full community worship allowed by the Archbishop. [Some of the laity who supported the liturgical changes] felt that the Archbishop should set a norm, binding on pastors for all parishes. In other words, they argue in this age of renewal one person should not prevent 2,000 families from participating in the liturgy according to the spirit of the Vatican Council.” See “Religion in Suburbia: Catholics want uniform Mass,” The Record, November 20, 1965, page 4.

[22] It is fairly well known that Cardinal John Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, was very unhappy with the liturgical reforms. His voluminous surviving correspondence with lay members of his flock during these years demonstrates his deep reluctance to implement the changes and his opinion that he had no other choice. Less well known was the similar reluctance of certain bishops in New Zealand. For example: “Peter McKeefry, Archbishop of Wellington and James Liston, Bishop of Auckland were the key bishops during this period. Their personal relationship is important to any analysis of the period. Neither of them wanted the Church to change, yet both implemented the changes in the Church because they had to. It was their job, not their choice. This underlying attitude is obvious in their approach to the changes, both in their own dioceses and in the Episcopal Conference. Cardinal Mckeefry is reputed to have said on his return from the first session of the Vatican Council, ‘English in the Mass? Over my dead body!’ . . . Given McKeefry’s position as principal Bishop and President of the Episcopal Conference, his attitude towards the changes is central. McKeefry’s attitude to liturgical reform as noted in the Conference minutes was, “that there was nothing to be lost in going slowly about the introduction of further changes.” See Rev. Joseph Grayland, New Life, Old Churchskins: The initial implementation of Pastoral Liturgy in New Zealand, 1963 to 1970, unpublished master’s thesis, 1996, pp 27-28. In private correspondence, reflecting on the liturgical changes since 1964 but before the revised Missale Romanum of Paul VI, McKeefry later acknowledged “the liturgical changes that have been made have caused a lot of heartache to many people and one must sympathise with those who are disturbed.” See Grayland, New Life, page 31.

[23] See, for example: “The Relation of Liturgy and Life: Conversation with Cardinal Lercaro,” in Commonweal Vol LXI, Number 12, Dec 24, 1954, pp 329-331.

[24] “Cardinal hits resistance to reform” in The Pittsburgh Catholic, March 11, 1965, page 12.

[25] “Cardinal hits resistance,” page 12.

[26] “Liturgical ignorance,” The Clarion Herald, April 15, 1965, page 4.

[27] Rev. W. Lawrence Franklin, “With Justice To All,” The Lakeshore Visitor, August 27, 1965, page 3.

[28] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 11.

[29] Rev. Joseph T. Nolan, “The Mass in New York: A Liturgical Success,” National Catholic Reporter, October 13, 1965, page 5.

[30] Mention can be found in various newspapers of Solemn Pontifical Latin High Masses offered by Cardinal Spellman and his auxiliary bishops through 1967. All mentions of such Masses stop immediately after Cardinal Spellman’s death on December 2, 1967 (his funeral, attended by 9 cardinals, was also pontifical high mass).

[31] “Letters to the Editor: Latin Mass on Television left two-faced image,” National Catholic Reporter, January 12, 1966, page 4.

[32] Rev. Andrew Greeley, “The Church – 1965,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, August 21, 1965, page 15. This confirms and provides additional context for the trends discussed in the previous installment in this series: namely, that the young clergy were by far the most enthusiastic towards the new liturgy, far more so than parish pastors and even those layfolk who liked it.

[33] For example: “I am a member of a large parish which still vegetates in the spirit of the pre-council days … our pastor continues to celebrate the entire Mass in Latin.” See “Wanted: A Share,” The Catholic Advocate, December 2, 1965, page 7; and also: “Those clerics who have been in the saddle longer are not likely to want change because it is a natural threat to security; witness the reluctance to change to the new liturgy.” See “Fear and dialogue in seminaries,” National Catholic Reporter, January 19, 1966, page 4.

[34] For example: St. Stephen’s parish in Monterey Park, California, had not adopted any English in the Mass even by 1967, and had not performed any physical renovations even as late as 1969. See Colleen McDannell, The Spirit of Vatican II: A History of Catholic Reform in America (New York, Basic Books, 2011) page 122.

[35]  “Resistance to changes in Liturgy is deplored,” The Catholic Transcript, March 18, 1965, page 10.

[36] “Europe adjusts to liturgical change: each change produces less shock,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, August 12, 1965, page 6.

[37] Examples given include: England – “A Latinist society has been formed in England to fight for the retention of that language in the liturgy”; France – “A strong reactionary movement has provoked uproar in many French churches when the vernacular was first introduced”; Italy – “In Italy, there were demands for a boycott of vernacular liturgies and worshipers were urged to reply in Latin when the priest addressed them in Italian”; and the Netherlands –“In Holland, the introduction of the vernacular into worship provided the catalytic element and popular appeal of a nascent reactionary movement there.” See “Europe adjusts,” page 6.

[38] “Europe adjusts,” page 6.

[39] “Europe adjusts,” page 6.

[40] “Letters to the Editor: Parishes slow to adopt new liturgy,” The Catholic Northwest Progress, November 18, 1966, page 4.

[41] Rev. Joseph Grayland, New Life, Old Churchskins: The initial implementation of Pastoral Liturgy in New Zealand, 1963 to 1970, unpublished master’s thesis, 1996, page 59.

[42] “Africans Resist Liturgy Changes,” St. Louis Review, September 9, 1966.

[43] The term “Latin Mass” can, in our modern usage, have multiple meanings. It can be used to refer to the pre-conciliar (un-reformed) liturgy or it can be used to describe the admittedly rare instance of the post-conciliar (reformed) liturgy being celebrated in the Latin language. The term “Latin Mass” was widely used between 1964 and 1969 but was hardly ever clearly defined. Based on patterns of contemporary usage and context derived from the many newspaper accounts and letters to the editor in which these mentions are found, it seems clear that a reference to the “Latin Mass” most often – but not always – meant the following: (1) a ‘low’ Mass according to the existing liturgical books, e.g. according to the March 1965 instruction, but in Latin; (2) with the bare minimum of congregational participation; (3) without any of the other new liturgical changes and practices, e.g. Mass facing the people or commentators, or with as few of these as possible.

[44] “Letters to the Editor: Consulting the Laity,” The Tablet, August 22, 1964, page 134.

[45] See Nico Fassino, “‘Stand Up Like Free Men’: The modern history of standing for Communion,” at The Pillar, January 14, 2025.

[46] “Australia Retains One Mass Each Week In Latin,” NCWC News Service, July 7, 1964, wire copy (foreign) page 4.

[47] “Official,” Providence Visitor, December 4, 1964, front page.

[48] Letter of Most Rev. Russell McVinney to Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R, March 22, 1965. My sincere thanks to Rev. Albert P. Marcello, III, for sharing a copy of this letter and a copy of the diocesan decree cited in footnote 32 above. In this letter, written to someone with sympathetic views, McVinney offered candid commentary which revealed his personal opinions about the new liturgy. It seems clear he disliked the liturgical changes, believed they would ultimately fail, and that there would be a future ‘awakening’ of those who desire a return to former ways:

This letter and these sentiments are all the more noteworthy because McVinney was a council father, attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council, and was writing to Connell who was himself a conciliar peritus and likewise attended all four council sessions.

[49] “Surprising acceptance, varied performance as English liturgy arrives,” National Catholic Reporter, December 9, 1964, page 1.

[50] “The Latin Rite,” The Tablet, February 13, 1965, page 172.

[51] As early as March 1965, the Archdiocese of Westminster and the Diocese of Brentwood required that each parish offer one Latin Mass each Sunday. See “Council Brings Vast Changes In Church In Britain,” NCWC News Service, March 18, 1965, wire copy (foreign) page 2; another mention: “A recent Salford diocesan instruction has reintroduced one Latin Mass each Sunday,” see “Letter to the editor: The Newman and the Liturgy,” The Tablet, May 8, 1965, page 530.

[52] “Letters to the Editor: Liturgical Confusion,” The Tablet, May 1, 1965, page 1965.

[53] For example: “Our pastor made the 9 a.m. Mass on the fourth Sunday of every month a ‘Latin’ Mass to preserve our traditions.” See “The Question Box,” The Catholic Advocate, December 7, 1967, page 10.

[54] “Letters to the editor: Backsliding?,” The Monitor, November 11, 1965, page 14.

[55] Rev. John S. Kennedy, “What it’s all about,” The Catholic Missourian, November 28, 1965, page 21.

[56] The previously mentioned nationwide survey by US Catholic revealed that, by mid-1966, a sizeable number of parishes around the country had already re-established, or were preparing to re-establish, at least one Latin Mass option to their Sunday schedule. Some parishes reported offering Latin Masses on Saturdays or weekdays in addition to Sundays, and even on important feast days like Easter and Christmas. The survey estimated that, nationally, at least 1,200 parishes still had at least one Latin Mass each Sunday. The Pacific region, from Alaska to California, was noted as leading the country in the number of Latin Masses, with an estimated 60% of parishes in this region retaining at least one Latin Mass on Sundays. See George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, pp 6-7 & 15-16.

[57] To give two examples:

In May 1966 the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh conducted a survey to determine if the laity “prefer Mass in English or Latin. The forms also ask those who prefer Latin if it should be a dialogue or silent Mass. Those who prefer English are asked if they prefer more English.” See “English or Latin Mass quiz in Scotland,” NCWC News Service, May 9, 1966, wire copy (foreign) page 11.

In August 1966, Archbishop Thomas A. Connolly of Seattle issued a 23 page questionnaire to the priests of his diocese with the goal of assessing “the implementation of the Council” on the local level. Included in the questionnaire were the following questions on the Latin Mass: “Have your people as a whole accepted the liturgical reforms? … How many of them would welcome an early morning ‘Latin Mass’ with congregational participation, of course, and in a parish where there are four or more Masses on Sunday?” See “I am an emerging bishop,” The Catholic Northwest Progress, September 2, 1966, page 2

[58] “New Mass Changes Aimed At Spurring Social Conscience,” NCWC News Service, March 10, 1966, wire copy (domestic), page 22.

[59] “Decisions made on form of Roman liturgy,” The Daily Telegraph, May 26, 1966.

[60] “Latin Mass Returns in Baltimore,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, July 7, 1966, page 9.

[61] “Baltimore Cardinal Permits Latin Masses,” NCWC News Service, June 29, 1966, wire copy (domestic) page 14.

[62] “Baltimore OKs Latin Mass,” The Boston Globe, July 9, 1966, page 16.

[63] “Parish inaugurates Mass in Latin,” NCWC News Service, November 29, 1966, wire copy (domestic) page 3.

[64] “Letters to the Editor: Gratias Ob Liturgiam Latinam,” The Tablet, February 4, 1967, page 134.

[65] “Mass in Latin starts Apr. 30,” The Clarion Herald, April 20, 1967, front page. The diocesan news article announcing this change reminded readers that “the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy authorized and encouraged the preservation of the Latin rites. Consequently, a number of dioceses have authorized special Latin Masses.”

[66] “The Secret’s Out, Latin Mass Ok,” The Catholic Advocate, March 14, 1968, page 6. The permission was granted via confidential letter in the summer of 1967. The archdiocese did not make any public announcement or recognition of this fact until March 1968, when auxiliary bishop Edward J Herrman revealed the permission when speaking to representatives of the Greater Washington Chapter of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. 

[67] “Cathedral slates Sunday Mass in Latin,” NC News Service, September 5, 1967, wire copy (domestic) page 5.

[68] Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Beyond the Rhine: Mass in Latin is Still Popular,” The Catholic Transcript, September 15, 1967, page 15.

[69] Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Beyond the Rhine,” page 15.

[70] “Letters to the Editor: English and Latin in the Mass,” The Tablet, February 15, 1964, page 192.

[71] “Letters to the editor: The Latin Rite,” The Tablet, February 20, 1965, pp 215-216. This proposal is particularly interesting in the light of modern debates about, and episcopal restrictions of, access to the Traditional Latin Mass. As a measure to enforce ‘unity’ some bishops, e.g. Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, have mandated all parishioners of Latin Mass communities must attend normal ‘Novus Ordo’ masses at least once a month and on major feast days. The 1965 proposal for unity is a fascinating inverse of this modern policy.

[72] “The Vernacular Society Marches On,” The Tablet, May 8, 1965, page 533. For more on the Vernacular Society, see Rev. Keith Pecklers, Dynamic Equivalence: The Living Language of Christian Worship (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003).

[73] “British Catholics Plan Campaign for Restoration of Latin Mass,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, May 6, 1965, page 2.

[74] “British Catholics,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, page 2.

[75] “Letters to the Editor: Good Taste In Music,” St. Louis Review, September 17, 1965, page 12. For Old St. Mary’s, see “Famed Choir Disbands Because Of Changes In Church,” NC News Service, October 12, 1967, wire copy (domestic) page 2.

[76] “Parish Reform Assemblies Held,” NCWC News Service, January 17, 1966, wire copy (domestic) page 14; and “St. Louis ‘Little Council’ passes first test,” National Catholic Reporter, January 26, 1966, front page.

[77] “Letters to the editor: Parishioner likes priest’s enthusiasm,” The Catholic Standard and Times, October 6, 1967, page 6.

[78] “Lingua Deserta,” The Tablet, December 2, 1967, page 1241. As early February 1965, the editors of The Tablet asked for Latin Masses and the new liturgy to live side-by-side: “… it becomes very difficult to see why a place should not be kept for a Latin Rite side by side with the new.” See “The Latin Rite,” The Tablet, February 13, 1965, page 172.

[79] “There is much in the new Instruction for every Catholic – even the active resistance. Here the resisters will find favorable mention of silence, choirs, Latin, and Gregorian chant . . . It is our hope that it not become a crusade of the liberals against the conservatives. There is room in God’s liturgical celebrations for many mansions . . . The resistance should read Rome with an open mind and heart [while] the rebels should read Rome with humility and loyalty . . . The new Instruction is not just a landmark in sacred music. It might well be our last great hope for peace in the cold liturgical war now being waged.” See “Archbishop Calls Music Instruction ‘Up-To Date’,” Georgia Bulletin, March 16, 1967, page 8.

[80] As mentioned in the previous installment of this series, it is known from several sources that “the year by year decline in Mass attendance starts to gather steam around 1967-1968.” For a variety of sources and citations on this theme, see footnote 50 in “The New Mass of 1964, Part 2: Polls & Surveys”. Additionally, and more importantly, there was contemporary commentary from Catholics at the time – both clergy and laity – who publicly stated their belief that the liturgical reforms were causing a decline in Mass attendance. For an exploration of this topic, see: https://handmissalhistory.com/newmass1964conclusion/#_tc4

[81] “Tries to Convey Idea That New Liturgy Is ‘Here to Stay’,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, March 13, 1965, page 8.

[82] The normative Mass underwent further alterations after being shown to the Synod fathers and ultimately led to the publication of the revised Roman Missal of Paul VI in 1969. For a short summary of this episode, see https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/how-the-novus-ordo-mass-was-made/; for a longer scholarly treatment, see Rev. Christiaan Kappes, The “Missa Normativa” of 1967; its history and principles as applied to the Liturgy of the Mass, unpublished doctoral thesis, 2012, page 230.

[83] “Synod members cool to ‘mini-mass’ in Sistine Chapel,” NC News Service, October 24, 1967, wire copy (foreign) page 10. The bishop who labeled the proposed new Mass as a ‘mini-mass’ was not named in the US Bishops’ news service account, but is known from other sources as Bishop Luis Eduardo Henríquez Jiménez of Caracas, Venezuela. See Peter Hebblethwaite, “Inside” the Synod: Rome 1967 (New York: Paulist Press, 1968) page 88.

[84] “Says Pope’s Actions Show Acceptance of Synod Recommendations,” NC News Service, November 6, 1967, wire copy (domestic) page 9.

[85] “Letters to the Editor: A Lost Liturgy,” The Times, November 7, 1967, page 11.

[86] Rev. Francis X. Murphy, Synod ‘67: A New Sound in Rome (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), page 157.

[87] “Synod members cool to ‘mini-mass’ in Sistine Chapel,” NC News Service, October 24, 1967, wire copy (foreign) page 11.

[88] Rev. Francis X. Murphy, Synod ‘67: A New Sound in Rome (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), page 156.

[89] “Synod members cool to ‘mini-mass’ in Sistine Chapel,” NC News Service, October 24, 1967, wire copy (foreign) page 10. The bishop who made this statement was not named in the US Bishops’ news service account, but is known from other sources as Bishop Donal Lamont of Umtali, Rhodesia. See Rev. Francis X. Murphy, Synod ‘67: A New Sound in Rome (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), pp 152-153.

[90] “Synod members cool to ‘mini-mass’,” page 11.

[91] “Synod members cool to ‘mini-mass’,” page 11.

[92] “Synod members cool to ‘mini-mass’,” page 11. The bishop who made this statement was not named in the US Bishops’ news service account, but is known from other sources as Bishop Bernard Yago of Abidjan, Ivory Coast. See Murphy, Synod ‘67, page 153.

[93] Rev. Francis X. Murphy, Synod ‘67: A New Sound in Rome (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), pp 155-156

[94] Rev. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), page 349 note 14. Bugnini says these words of Cicognani appeared in the October 27 issue of L’Osservatore Romano, but I have not been able to independently verify.

[95] “Letters to the Editor: A Lost Liturgy,” The Times, November 7, 1967, page 11. In this letter to the editor, Dwyer is recounting statements he made at the press conferences which preceded and followed the various liturgical demonstrations and interventions at the 1967 Synod of Bishops. Dwyer had declined to express his personal opinions about the proposed new rite during the Synod, as he was serving as official spokesman during the press conferences and felt that he should be as objective as possible. Dwyer was a longtime ardent proponent of liturgical reform and seems to have been somewhat conflicted in his feelings regarding the liturgical changes. While he warned in his press comments that “we cannot wantonly destroy” the traditional Roman Rite, Dwyer also described the process as a necessary revolution: “Archbishop Dwyer also said that liturgical reform was the key to the updating of the Church begun by the Vatican Ecumenical Council. ‘Make no mistake about it,’ he said. ‘The revolution begins here.’” See “Let lay helpers give Communion, RC Bishops urge,” The Birmingham Post, October 24, 1967, page 7.

[96] “Synod discussing future form of the Mass,” NC News Service, October 23, 1967, wire copy (foreign) page 9.

[97] Simple Missal (Leeds: Laverty & Sons, 1967). Wheeler was also the Vice-Chairman of the English Liturgical Commission at the time.

[98] Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, page 349. It is difficult to reconcile Bugnini’s claim here (that most of the complaints came from curial cardinals instead of bishops “from the periphery”) with the facts which are known about the complaints: many of the recorded critical comments were made by bishops serving in Africa, South America, and missionary territories. Additionally, another contemporary report on the Synod explicitly says the opposite – that the curial cardinals were less vehement in their opposition to the proposed new rite: “Curial cardinals who took the floor at the Synod after the bishops speaking on behalf of the episcopal conferences, were less violent in their expression, but their intention was equally to block Cardinal Lercaro’s proposals.” See Rev. Francis X. Murphy, Synod ‘67: A New Sound in Rome (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), page 155.

[99] Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, page 175.

[100] Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, pp 349-350.

[101] Even Archbishop Dwyer, himself a member of the Consilium, seemed to publicly suggest that the final results of the reform would not occur for many years. One record of his press conference stated: “[Dwyer said] the work of the Consilium will continue until the whole reform of the liturgy is completed and ‘this will take a very long time.’” See “Bishops at Synod Speak of ‘New Mass,’ Office,” The Catholic Standard and Times, October 27, 1967, page 11.

[102] Cardinal John Heenan, Advent Pastoral Letter, November 21, 1967, as given in Alcuin Reid, A Bitter Trial: Evelyn Waugh and John Carmel Cardinal Heenan on the Liturgical Changes (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), pp 105-107.

[103] Yves Chiron, Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (Brooklyn: Angelico Press, 2018), page 131.

[104] Chiron, Bugnini, pp 131-132.

[105] See for example: “Most Synod Members Liked ‘Standard’ Mass,” The Catholic Transcript, November 3, 1967, page 6; “Outcome of Bishops’ Synod Continues to Be ‘Debatable’,” The Catholic Transcript, November 10, 1967, page 9; “‘New’ Mass Form Wins Approval,” The Catholic Advocate, November 2, 1967, front page.

[106]  “It’s Too Late to Stop Liturgical Progress,” The Catholic Advocate, February 1, 1968, page 8. It is interesting that Greeley (who was well connected to liturgists, academics, and members of the hierarchy throughout the United States and in Rome) apparently attempted to hedge his comments in reaction to the Synodal news by referring to the details as merely “rumors,” even though almost everything he mentioned in his column had already been openly reported in official organs of the Catholic press. It is likewise interesting that in response to Cardinal Heenan’s statement that the English faithful would have a hard time accepting the Canon in English, Greeley intimated that this was seemingly baseless. Yet this too was true and had been previously confirmed in the public Catholic press. See, for example, the extraordinarily negative reaction of the editors of The Tablet regarding the English-version of the Canon:

“It may well be that the supporters of both the Latin and the vernacular use will find themselves, for the first time in their lives, united on realising that they are both betrayed by the version of the Canon that is now being proposed. […] It passes comprehension that the bishops of this country should have accepted, even provisionally, this so-called translation of the Canon which is shortly to be heard in our Churches. Nobody who studies it line by line with the original can fail to notice that it is a prime example of that ‘desacralisation’ against which the Pope has warned the Church. […] The ancient and venerable text of the Roman Canon has been mutilated beyond recognition. The ruling idea seems to have been to see how much could be cut out on any pretext or none. This is certainly not what Rome had in mind when it demanded a version ‘without mutilations or simplifications of any kind.’” See  “Lingua Deserta,” The Tablet, December 2, 1967, page 1241.

[107] Rev. George W. Casey, “A Pastor Gets Nostalgic When ‘His’ Church Changes,” The St. Louis Review, July 21, 1967, page 15.

[108] “Synod Votes, Speeches, Stressed Pastoral, Decentralized Themes,” St. Louis Review, November 3, 1967. The quote given is from journalist Richard Stewart in a dispatch filed for the Catholic Features Cooperative.

[109] “Abp. Hallinan: ‘30 to 40’ Bishops Seek Reform,” St. Louis Review, March 1, 1968, page 9.

[110] Mentions of resistance or poor progress in implementing the new liturgy can continue to be found beyond 1967, but it seems unnecessary to belabor the topic. To give just one example: a confidential letter from the Bishop of Christchurch, New Zealand to the diocesan liturgy commission in May 1968 admitted that “the liturgical renewal had not yet ‘caught fire’ in the diocese as a whole, due to a lack of personal conviction” from the priests. See Letter of Brian Ashby to John Cuneen dated May 2, 1968, as quoted in Rev. Joseph Grayland, New Life, Old Churchskins: The initial implementation of Pastoral Liturgy in New Zealand, 1963 to 1970, unpublished master’s thesis, 1996, page 54.

[111] Rev. Christiaan Kappes, The “Missa Normativa” of 1967; its history and principles as applied to the Liturgy of the Mass, unpublished doctoral thesis, 2012, page 230.

[112] Rev. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), page 357 note 19. The exact timing of events is not perfectly clear in Bugnini’s account, but given other information about the Synod, the statement of the episcopal conference (given by Dwyer in their name) must have occurred during the opening days of the Synod, before the demonstration of the missa normativa or the voting occurred.

[113] Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, pp 349-350. “In fact, when the time to vote came. Bishop Dwyer himself, after voicing the unanimous acceptance by the English hierarchy of the structure of the normative Mass, did not approve of it.”

[114] Bugnini, Reform of the Liturgy, page 357.

[115] When reading this section, it is difficult to  avoid the sense that the author was  ‘protesting too much.’ The claim that the Consilium sent the proposed liturgical texts to each bishops’ conference, in advance of the Synod, in enough time for the conferences to review them and vote on them as a body does not appear to be factual in all cases. The Consilium met in Rome to finalize their proposals from April 10-19, 1967 and mailed out a “lengthy report” to the conferences at some point afterwards, so that “the episcopal conferences might discuss them and their delegates might then report on their thinking” (it is not known exactly when the report was mailed or received).  It is known that some bishops’ conferences could not have received the proposals: for example, the US Bishops met in plenary assembly to discuss the Synod and choose delegates April 10-13. Some bishops conferences did meet later in the year which would have allowed them to potentially review the proposals if they had received them. One such example is the French bishops, who met at the end of May and in early June – although news reports of their meeting only mentioned that they discussed a French-language version of the Canon of the Mass and chose delegates for the Synod in Rome, with no mention of review or voting on a proposed new rite of the Mass. Likewise, the English bishops met June 19-20 to choose delegates for the Synod. Cardinal John Heenan was hospitalized with a grave illness and missed the meeting, and there was no mention of any review of liturgical proposals in the news summaries of the event.

[116] Rev. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), page 357.

[117] The Tablet, a British periodical, produced a lengthy excoriation of the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) and the failures of the English bishops regarding the English-language version of the Canon of the Mass which was publicly announced in November 1967. It is an extraordinary article and deserves to be reproduced in large part:

[118] Beretta made these comments in a 1996 manuscript response to a survey questionnaire sent by Alcuin Reid. As quoted in Alcuin Reid, “The Fathers of Vatican II and the Revised Mass: Results of a Survey,” Antiphon Vol. 10, no. 2 (2006), page 175. Reid provides similar comments by other bishops, like those of Archbishop Philip Hannan of New Orleans: “There was a great deal of discussion [on the liturgy during the council], much of it on the change to the vernacular. We did not realise that there would be so many subsequent changes, for instance … the four [sic] Eucharistic Prayers submitted and promulgated by Paul VI.”

[119] Reid, “Results of a Survey,” page 176.

[120] Reid, “Results of a Survey,” page 189.

[121] Reid, “Results of a Survey,” page 176.

[122] Reid, “Results of a Survey,” page 176.

[123] Reid, “Results of a Survey,” page 176.

[124] Letter of Cardinal John Heenan in response to a laywoman, dated February 17, 1969. For a photograph of this letter and additional examples, see this Twitter thread by researcher Matthew Hazell.

[125] While this comedy sketch is used by Francis to make a humorous point about liturgist’s strident demands and dismissiveness towards the laity, this kind of language was legitimately employed to enforce obedience to the new liturgy. In reaction to the August 1965 survey of the laity conducted by Today’s Family Magazine, one nun wrote an acerbic letter to the editors of the magazine, saying in part (emphasis added):

“Who are we to accept or not accept, to approve or not approve, the mandates of Vatican II? . . . What difference does it really make whether we like or dislike the content of the Constitution on the Liturgy? We had better know it and obey it! It seems to me we should all stand and sing and listen as we are directed and learn to like it!” See “On consulting the faithful,” The National Catholic Reporter, August 25, 1965, page 3.

[126] Dale Francis, “The Mood of the Laity: How Are Catholics Reacting to the New Liturgy? Part 1: Confused, Frustrated, Bewildered,” The Critic, February/March 1965, pp 56-59.

[127] A member of the Consilium seems to have given an interview about the proposed Mass to the French periodical La Croix on October 24, 1965. This prompted several prominent French theologians to immediately send direct personal messages of concern to Pope Paul VI: “Father L. Bouyer sent the Holy Father a lengthy statement on the Eucharistic Prayers and the revision of the Roman Canon; Mme. Noele Maurice Denis Boulet did the same, using Jacques Maritain and Cardinal Joumet as her channel.” See Rev. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), page 152 note 30.

[128] Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, page 152 note 30.

[129] In the words of Rev. Annibale Bugnini: “Unfortunately, the experiments became known. Some organs of the press reported on them and thus gave rise to complaints. The result was that work on the Ordo Missae was stopped until the Synod of 1967.” The Consilium’s work on the proposed new rite did not fully stop (e.g. it finalized the liturgical text of the new rite in May 1966 and met in special audience with the pope in June 1966 regarding the details), but nothing was made public and the Consilium did not attempt to receive approval for official implementation until 1967.

Details of the 1965 resistance were publicly discussed by a member of the Consilium for first time in the spring of 1967:

“The text of an experimental Ordinary for the Mass is to go to the Synod of Bishops for approval, two years after its preparation by the Liturgical Consilium, it was learned this week. […] ‘When we left Rome in 1965, we expected an announcement [of approval for the new rite] in a few weeks,’ a member of the Consilium said this week. ‘We had had two Masses using the text, one in French and the other in Italian, at a school near St. Peter’s. Nothing happened. Later, we heard final approval had been held up in reaction to the strong campaign going on here in Italy in opposition to the liturgical reforms.’” See Edythe Westenhaver, “Experimental Mass Text Is On Synod Agenda,” The St. Louis Review, April 28, 1967, front page.

• Follow us on Twitter

• About
• Contact
• Donate
• Features
• Home