Header image: The Catholic Advocate, October 31, 1968, page 20. Source: Catholic News Archive, public domain. To view the full-size image, click here.

This article was originally published on April 8, 2026.

Links to the other parts of the series can be found here: Main Page, Series Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and the Series Conclusion.

Over the preceding three installments of this series, we have reconstructed how Catholics experienced the very first liturgical changes (implemented between 1964 and 1968) as a result of the Second Vatican Council. We have seen that the initial “interim” reforms were viewed as the arrival of a “New Mass,” that a surprisingly large percentage of the laity were unhappy with the reforms and wanted them to stop, and that there was a clear pattern of active resistance to these “interim” changes in normal parishes by laity, clergy, and even some bishops.

This final installment will examine two aspects of this “interim” period which have thus far received scant attention in any scholarly or popular historical accounts: 

As we have previously documented, almost all prior scholarship about this “interim period” made the assumption – based on scant citations – that the laity were overwhelmingly supportive of the very first liturgical changes which began in 1964. It was not until the revised Missal of Paul VI in 1970, it was previously thought, that the liturgical changes caused a significant amount of resistance and confusion among the laity. 

Given these assumptions, it is not surprising that existing scholarship has not attempted to document the way that establishment figures and clergy interacted with the laity or the public commentary about the confusion and unhappiness that were made in diocesan newspapers by priests and bishops during these years.

Yet, as we will see, these aspects of the interim period are critical for understanding the full picture of how the post-conciliar liturgical reforms were implemented and received throughout the church. They also clarify and offer additional context for the other parts of this series. These cannot be fully appreciated without also understanding the way in which the laity were treated during the implementation of the initial liturgical reforms and the widespread belief that something had gone seriously and unexpectedly wrong with the reforms by 1966.

This article will have two main parts.

First, I will explore the pastoral approach taken by priests, bishops, and diocesan newspapers during the implementation of the liturgical changes between 1964 and 1968. This will demonstrate that after initial calls to be patient and understanding with the laity who disliked the liturgical reforms, many clerics shifted to demanding docility and obedience. It will also reveal the sarcastic, glib, and scathing replies made by clerical commentators, opinion columnists, and newspaper editors in response to layfolk who were unhappy and confused.

Second, I will examine a broad range of public commentary, printed in diocesan newspapers between 1964 and 1968, which indicates that many clerics who supported the council and the New Liturgy believed that something had gone seriously awry with the liturgical reform and the general state of the church. This took a variety of forms: there were explicit comments that something had  “gone wrong,” observations that the new liturgy was not having the anticipated effect in the laity, and even an explicit belief that the liturgical reforms were failing or had already failed.

Fig 1 – Nationally syndicated editorial cartoon, from The Catholic Commentator, July 22, 1966, page 4. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

The very first liturgical changes, announced in early 1964 and implemented throughout that year, were the subject of an overwhelming amount of reporting, debate, and explanation in parishes and organs of the Catholic press throughout the United States and the United Kingdom.[1]

Sifting through substantial volumes of this material – commentary, reporting, and letters to the editor across thousands of newspaper pages – offers a glimpse into the pastoral approaches taken by establishment figures within the Catholic Church (bishops, chancery officials, diocesan newspaper editors, clerical columnists) as they implemented these first liturgical changes. 

There were a wide variety of communication styles and messages used to explain the changes and/or attempt to broker the laity’s acceptance and satisfaction with them. In aggregate, there are several noticeable trends or themes which emerge across multiple periodicals and sources, which suggests these sentiments were indeed widespread throughout the English-speaking Catholic world at the time. 

I have grouped examples of several of these trends, and assigned them a shorthand label which summarizes the substance of the pastoral approach: 

In the run-up to the implementation of the very first liturgical changes in 1964, a number of prominent priests and bishops made a plea for patience, understanding, and kindness towards any of the laity who did not like the changes.

Speaking to a crowd of passionate liturgical enthusiasts at the annual Liturgical Week in St. Louis, Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta said: 

Acknowledging that there was already “some resistance to the new changes,” Hallinan declared that “[w]e also need tact and courtesy and kindness and persuasion . . . Those who love the liturgy must be a real elite, and its foremost mark should be deep humility.”[3]

Clerical commentator Father Gordon B. Wadhams, an Episcopalian convert, offered a similar encouragement a few months later: “It is not just the Anne Freemantles and Evelyn Waughs among us who will find the new ways very upsetting; a large number of our people will, and with them we shall have to be very understanding and very, very patient.”[4]

Fig 2 – Collage of articles about or by Thomas Merton’s plea against bullying the laity during the implementation of the revised liturgy. Scans via Catholic News Archive and Newspapers.com, public domain.

Thomas Merton, the celebrated Trappist monk who had attained a measure of global celebrity, also gave a strong preemptive denunciation of attempts to force the laity into obedience. Merton’s comments were picked up by a number of American diocesan and Catholic newspapers in November 1964, on the eve of the very first liturgical changes:

Some bishops implemented the new liturgy in a way which, at least initially, seemed to fulfill these pleas for patience and respect by offering priests and laity flexibility and optionality. 

For example, Bishop William O’Connor of the diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, only required that each parish offer at least one Mass in English according to the new liturgy on Sundays and holy days. Beyond that, priests were given “considerable leeway” in managing the liturgy in their parishes, retaining Masses in Latin, etc.[6]

This approach was far from a unanimous position, however. Even before the changes, some clerics and bishops signaled their intention to demand and enforce “obedience” to the new liturgical paradigm. Efforts to pursue a more hardline approach – one that eschewed the original calls for patience and understanding – increased after the first liturgical changes were implemented and greater-than-expected resistance and unhappiness emerged in late 1964 and early 1965.

Father Andrew Breines, the editor of Madison’s diocesan newspaper, wrote in early November 1964 that the Council’s Liturgical Constitution “demanded” full, conscious, and active participation in the liturgy and that the laity no longer had any choice in the matter.[7]

Less than two months after the introduction of ‘the New Mass’ in the Diocese of Madison, and in direct contradiction to Bishop O’Connor’s original directives that only mandated one English mass per Sunday and holy day, Breines again took to his editorial column to declare that it was no longer acceptable or permissible to offer Mass in Latin. Published on January 23, 1965, his column is revealing in many respects (emphasis added):

This column serves as a representative example of the attitudes of those who strongly supported and helped guide the implementation of the initial liturgical reforms. Even though the liturgical changes were admittedly merely optional and recommended at the time of his writing, and even though diocesan directives explicitly required only one English Mass, Breines confidently and publicly declared that all clerics and laity must obey the unwritten spirit of the directives: that the reforms were mandatory after all, and no accommodation was to be made for those who did not like them. 

Demands for obedience as early as January 1965 seem to been strengthened, in part, by statements made by Pope Paul VI at an audience on January 13 in which he urged the laity to “be docile” to the changes even if they disliked them. As described by contemporary news reports, these comments were in response to the clear unhappiness and dissatisfaction by some of the laity to the new liturgical changes: “the Pope made it clear that he is aware of the many difficulties some Catholics are having with the changes brought about by the ecumenical council’s liturgical constitution.”[9] 

In his address, the pope said:

Fig 3 – Collage of articles about Pope Paul VI’s address urging the laity to accept the reforms and be docile between January 22 and 24, 1965. Scans via Newspapers.com, public domain.

The pope’s comments ran in newspapers throughout the United States, and were immediately used by supporters of the liturgical reform to demand obedience from the laity. Just 10 days after the pope’s audience, the editorial column of the Madison Catholic Herald Citizen ran a derisive broadside against anyone who disliked the liturgical changes, with the headline “Pope Tells Complainers: STOP.”

There are many examples which confirm that by early 1965 many clerics, religious, and proponents of the liturgical reform had abandoned any notion of attempting to “reasonably and gently” win over the skeptical laity. The message had shifted to various permutations of “just obey” and “get used to it.” For example:

Despite these prevailing sentiments, there were still some clerics and commentators at this time who thought this hardline authoritarian approach was mistaken. Father Paul Byron of St. Gabriel church in Charlotte, North Carolina, said so plainly in an interview to the US Bishop’s news service in the summer of 1965:

Another priest wrote:

A columnist with the National Catholic Reporter, a publication known for its support of the liturgical changes and progressive outlook, likewise strongly disagreed with demands (quoted above) that, concerning the liturgical reform, the laity must “know it … obey it … and learn to like it.” In response, the unnamed opinion writer wrote:

While far fewer in number than those who supported the liturgical changes, there were a handful of writers and opinion columnists who expressed reservations about the New Liturgy. Like other layfolk who struggled with the changes, these opinion columnists also faced opprobrium for expressing their views publicly and were told in no uncertain terms to stay silent, accept the changes, and obey. Just two weeks after the introduction of the very first liturgical changes in the United States, San Francisco Examiner columnist Dick Nolan received a vituperative letter attacking him for criticizing the changes.[17] Nolan’s response is indicative of the pressure felt by those who were unhappy or struggling with the changes – pressure to keep quiet and accept the changes in silence:

Fig 4 – From The Catholic Northwest Progress, May 13, 1966, page 5. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Amidst this dismissiveness and public demands for obedience, it is worth noting that many layfolk who did not like the liturgical changes – even some of those who strenuously objected to them – still did indeed attempt to accept them and obey.[19] In the words of one layman in a letter to the editor: 

Another letter, written by a laywoman in Seattle in May 1966 responding to another writer, was extraordinarily frank:

Another strain of commentary emerged, concurrently with the rest, as clerics and commentators attempted to overcome lay reluctance and dissatisfaction with the changes. This approach tried to remind the laity that the changes were being made specifically for them. “We are doing this for you, even if you don’t think you like it” seemed to be one message. In early 1964, famed British liturgical scholar Dom Gregory Murray said so as bluntly as possible in a letter to the editors of The Tablet:

The editorial column of one American diocesan newspaper tried to put a more positive, if hyperbolic, spin on this message:

Another variation on this sentiment emphasized that these changes needed to happen because of modernity. “You are modern people living in modern times, the liturgy therefore must be updated to meet your modern needs – even if you personally don’t think you want it” was the general thrust of this messaging. “Times change and we change with them . . . we must not allow our personal preferences here [regarding how to participate at Mass] to interfere with the decree of the council” was how Bishop of Madison William O’Connor opened his explanatory remarks about the upcoming liturgical changes.[24]

Fig. 5 – Collage from the special feature on “the New Liturgy” in the Catholic Advocate, February 18, 1965, ‘topic’ section page 1 and 2. Scans via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

The editors of The Advocate, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Newark, made an even more pointed plea on the front page of a special supplement dedicated to “The New Liturgy” in February 1965. In a section titled “How To Take The Changes,” the editors listed a variety instructions for the laity on how to accept the changes (e.g. “don’t ignore the lector-commentator” and “don’t avoid the participated Mass in your parish”). The section concluded with the unintentionally humorous reminder to the reader: “Do remember the pope said the new liturgy fits ‘the needs of modern man.’”[25]

Msgr. George W. Casey, an outspoken national columnist and pastor of St. Brigid Church in Lexington, Massachusetts, went even further on this point. In a column with a particularly arresting headline (“‘What is right’ may change tomorrow”!), Casey wrote:

The day before the liturgical changes went into effect in Italy in March 1965, Vatican Radio commented on “the  inevitable criticisms the changes” and issued the most direct, stark, and blunt framing of the changes as required by modernity irrespective of the laity’s desires:

There is one final style of commentary and pastoral manner that I wish to survey, one which seems to have dominated discourse in the Catholic press during these interim years: that of callous disregard for those members of the laity who were questioning or struggling with the changes. Catholic diocesan newspapers between 1964 and 1968 consistently featured prominent editorials and clerical commentators who responded to unhappy layfolk with glib, sarcastic, and even scathing public remarks. This trend began even before the very first liturgical changes had been implemented and before the scope of lay resistance and confusion had fully manifested. 

Fig. 6 – Msgr. J. D. Conway’s “Question Box” feature, in the Catholic Commentator, June 18, 1965, page 5. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

In early November 1964, one lay person wrote to the popular and nationally syndicated Q&A column by Msgr. John Donald Conway.[28] Conway was a priest of the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, who held a variety of prominent posts in the diocese and in national organizations and had even served as a private expert at the Second Vatican Council.[29] He was a paragon of those who supported the liturgical renewal and post-conciliar change and a respected and seriously influential voice throughout the United States until his death in 1967.[30] 

The writer asked:

Conway opened his reply, which ran to almost 800 words, with a sarcastic riposte:

This response encapsulates Conway’s approach to questions and opinions he disagreed with, particularly regarding the liturgical changes: he was not afraid to utilize a mix of snide, flippant, biting, and authoritarian remarks or even, occasionally, personal attacks. Conway certainly was not the only person who responded in this way to laity who disliked the changes – a number of clerical commentators, opinion columnists, and newspaper editors did so to varying degrees.[33] 

But Conway serves as the superlative embodiment of this pastoral approach due to his fame, national scope and influence, and the praise and respect paid to him by various clerics and officials responsible for implementing the liturgical changes.[34] His words and attitude dominated public discourse in the Catholic press, were cited and referred to by priests around the country, and therefore merit examination as a definitive case study.

Within three months of the introduction of the new liturgy, members of the laity wrote openly about being deeply unhappy and disoriented as a result of Conway’s responses. Writing in the National Catholic Reporter, a publication which was not a bastion of conservative sentiments, one woman wrote:

In June 1965, Conway published a lengthy letter he had received from a 28 year old father who was seriously struggling to accept the changes. By turns sad, confused, angry, and humorous, the letter may be one of the most memorable and affecting exchanges between a layman and Conway across all his many Q&A columns during the initial liturgical changes. For this reason, although it is quite lengthy, it seems worth reproducing here:

Conway’s response, equally lengthy, ran in part:

Many letters to the editor during these years testified that harsh responses or even personal attacks from priests were not limited to the pages of diocesan newspapers – clergy regularly criticized the reluctant or unenthusiastic laity from the pulpit! In January 1965, one woman wrote:

Another person wrote directly to Conway to complain about the stream of abuse directed at the laity, including Conway’s own remarks. In his reply, Conway made the smallest of gestures in the direction of recognizing that he had something to apologize for, but ended by blaming the laity themselves for whatever insults they have received:

Yet another letter writer wrote to Conway to protest the harsh treatment of the laity who struggled with the changes:

Despite this apparent recognition that some laity deserved tolerance and understanding, Conway had a sometimes brutal way of delivering his retorts which seemed devoid of any such tolerance. When asked about the inconveniences of vernacular Masses in foreign countries, Conway responded with stinging criticisms of the former use of Latin and informed the questioners that they had never actually understood the liturgy, even if they thought they had:

Fig. 7 – Msgr. J. D. Conway’s “Question Box” feature, in the Clarion Herald, June 30, 1966, Section 2 page 2. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

In this, Conway again appears to be representative of a widespread trend at the time. Many of the laity were deeply insulted when they were told by clerics that, no matter what they themselves thought about how they used to attend the Mass, that they obviously never actually participated or understood what was happening.[42] Lucile Hasley, a prominent columnist and author who had converted to Catholicism in 1930, pushed back against this trend in early 1965:

Various priest commentators replied with harsh words and offered little concrete help to those who were struggling. For example, in responding to those who were upset about being forced to participate in the new style of liturgy, Father Francis X. Weiser, SJ, recommended that they simply read a book or two to better educate themselves and stop their complaints:

Weiser’s rhetorical question about the community feeling which was supposed to be engendered by the new liturgy further demonstrates the disconnect between clergy and laity on these issues. A 1966 survey by Our Sunday Visitor revealed that, on this very question, the majority of the lay respondents did not experience worship according to the new liturgy as something that united them to their fellow parishioners: 33% felt closer to fellow parishioners, 40% felt no change, and 27% felt  less close to fellow parishioners than before.[45]

Sometimes priests openly doubted – and even mocked – the sincerity of the members of the laity who said they were struggling, hurt, or confused about the changes.[46] Msgr. George Casey penned a contemptuous and sarcastic column to this effect in 1967:

The flippant tone and decidedly unpastoral manner that dominated much of this discussion in the Catholic press did not impact the laity alone. A good number of regular parish clergy also noticed and were affected by this attitude. One priest – Fr. Anthony Granato of St. Rocco’s church in Newark – commented on how unseemly and off-putting this had become by 1966: 

It should be noted that not all clerical commentators, opinion columnists, or editorial boards were uniformly or regularly acerbic, sarcastic, or dismissive. Some gave more balanced but bland responses which clearly fell far short of the laity’s requests for help[49]; others were clearly sympathetic and supportive[50]; still others attempted to offer good natured and positive support to all sides, to those who loved and hated the liturgical changes alike.[51]

But the preponderance of clerical, opinion, and editorial commentary during these years was decidedly harsh and negative towards anyone who struggled to accept the very first liturgical changes. This was not limited to merely diocesan clergy or a hodgepodge of individual commentators – even the pope himself did likewise on occasion. In a general audience on March 15, 1965, Pope Paul VI refused to respond to lay complaints about the liturgical changes and dismissed them as not deriving from “true devotion and a true sense of the significance and of the value of holy Mass, but rather of a certain spiritual indolence which does not want to make any personal effort of intelligence and participation.”[52]

Fig. 8 – NCWC News Service, March 22, 1965, wire documentary service. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

In light of what we have surveyed above, one may well wonder: why was there so much public animosity and a lack of patience and pastoral accompaniment towards the laity who struggled to accept the liturgical changes between 1964 and 1968? Why did things transition so quickly from “we must have patience” to “you must obey”?

I suggest that what drove this clerical and establishment reaction to lay unhappiness and resistance, at least in part, was a widespread sentiment among this same clerical and establishment class that something had gone seriously wrong after the council. While some clerics and prelates had published premonitions of resistance and unhappiness immediately before the implementation of the changes, the actual scope and endurance of lay dissatisfaction was clearly a surprise and shock to those who advocated for the reforms. Over the first two years following the introduction of the initial liturgical changes, feelings of disillusionment and frustration grew in those who championed the reforms: the liturgical changes did not seem to be having the intended or expected results, and something seemed to have gone unexpectedly off the rails.

These sentiments were attested to by many prominent clerical commentators, including some priests who had been in attendance at the council as conciliar experts (“periti”). It is my belief that this overwhelming sense of failure and gloom on the part of these establishment figures contributed to the harsh, authoritative, sarcastic, or dismissive manner with which they dealt with the laity.

As early as the spring of 1966, less than six months after the close of the Second Vatican Council, there were already some passionate supporters of the council who were willing to publicly discuss their belief that something had already gone wrong with the conciliar efforts at reform – both in a general sense and also specifically with the revised liturgy.

For example, on the back cover of the May 1966 issue of Jubilee magazine, in a promotion to encourage subscriptions, the editors argued that they covered a long list of the most pressing and interesting topics of the day:

Fig. 9 – The Catholic Advocate, June 1, 1967, page 10.  Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Father Andrew Greeley was a widely read syndicated columnist and renowned sociologist whose writing frequently prompted national headlines. In the spring of 1967, Greeley took to his regular column to publicly lament the state of the post-conciliar reform. Greeley emphasized that the period from roughly September 1966 to May 1967 was one of universal gloom and a strong feeling among those who were most supportive and optimistic that “for all practical purposes the council was a waste of time.” His column is breathtakingly frank, insightful, and worth quoting at length (emphasis added):

Fig. 10 – The Catholic Northwest Progress, October 4, 1968, page 4 (the headline contains a typo: Sheerin’s title was “Meditation on a Mess”) Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Father John B. Sheerin was another prominent figure who shared Greeley’s deep pessimism. Sheerin had been a private peritus at the Second Vatican Council, was a nationally syndicated columnist, and also served as the editor of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s diocesan newspaper. In October 1968, Sheerin confirmed that the dire sense of gloom and overwhelming failure had persisted and intensified. He even explicitly highlighted the liturgical changes when naming things that had gone wrong:

Fig. 11 – The Catholic Advocate, Volume 17, Number 45, 31 October 1968. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Following Sheerin’s column, another clerical columnist and diocesan newspaper editor went public with similar sentiments. Msgr. John F. Davis was a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark, had been vice president of Seton Hall University, and served both as editor of the Catholic Advocate and assistant director of the diocesan Society for the propagation of the Faith.

In his column on October 31, 1968, Davis unequivocally stated that “there is no doubt that something did go wrong” with the council and its aftermath. Davis’s column explicitly mentions the apparent failure or problems with many prominent elements of the conciliar reform, including the liturgy. Again, his column – which, like those of Greeley and Sheerin above, have not been previously cited – is deserves to be quoted at some length (emphasis added):

In November 1968, Father Louis Bouyer published a book titled The Decomposition of Catholicism.[57] Bouyer was one of the luminaries of the French Liturgical Movement and had enthusiastically celebrated the conciliar liturgical reforms – at least initially. His 1968 book marks perhaps the greatest public manifestation of Bouyer’s deep pessimism and “near despair” (in the words of Matthew Levering) about the liturgical changes and attempts at renewal, which in his view had utterly failed.[58]

In The Decomposition of Catholicism, Bouyer wrote:

Bouyer’s appraisal of the state of the liturgy and the church more generally was provocative, to be sure. But his words and thoughts were taken extremely seriously by many. Pope Paul VI even cited this book in a woeful address at his weekly general audience on Wednesday, April 2, 1969 – the day before the start of the Sacred Triduum and the most sacred liturgies of the church year.[60]

Fig 12 – Collage of articles from December 13, 1968 reporting Pope Paul VI’s “self-demolition” remarks. Scans via Catholic News Archive and Newspapers.com, public domain.

Citations of Bouyer aside, proof that by 1968 there was a global, undeniable belief among many in the hierarchy that something had gone permanently, disastrously wrong after the council was given unique and definitive expression by Pope Paul VI himself. On December 7, the pope visited the Pontifical Lombard Seminary in Rome and gave an address to the superiors and seminarians. The address was not fully transcribed, and only partial direct quotes from the pope were published – though the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano did offer a detailed running description and paraphrase of his remarks. 

During this meeting with the seminary, Pope Paul VI gave a shocking assessment of the state of the church after the council: that she was wounding and demolishing herself, instead of the anticipated period of peace and growth! Perhaps just as astonishing, given that assessment, the pope emphasized that he himself would not take any dramatic action or “energetic and decisive interventions” to attempt to rectify the situation. Instead, the pope stated that he had “confidence in Jesus Christ, to whom he has entrusted his Church more than to anyone else. It is for him [Christ] to calm the tempest.”[61]

The substance of the pope’s assessment of the state of the church was understandably disturbing and distressing. The US Bishops’ news service picked up the story and diocesan newspapers and Catholic periodicals throughout the Anglosphere ran the grim message:

The preceding examples confirm beyond doubt that by 1966, and crescendoing through 1968, there was a pervading sense that something had gone wrong with the council and liturgical reform.  

The idea that many supporters of the liturgical reforms, including prominent clerics, believed that the liturgical reforms had failed – years before the announcement of the revised Roman Missal of Paul VI – seems to warrant further exploration and discussion. There were a number of public comments to this effect in the first three years following the introduction of the very first liturgical changes.

In 1965, one layperson who initially supported the New Liturgy wrote to Monsignor J.D. Conway to lament the deliberate “downgrading” of Catholic devotional life – things like the rosary, confession, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, novenas, missions, and retreats – and the impact this had on the laity due to the inadequacies of the liturgical changes. The problem, according to the writer, was that (emphasis added) “the new liturgy has not yet become sufficiently meaningful or satisfying to fill the void. As a result many Catholics feel a loss in their lives and they are not happy about it. I am in this category, even though at first I was one of the most enthusiastic of all about the new changes.”[63]

Conway agreed, saying, “I believe there is truth in the claim you quote. Possibly we have been too quick to desert old devotions without finding something better to replace them. Some of us, I am afraid, have confused the Council’s change of emphasis with repudiation of the old.”[64]

Another layman – who applauded the council and did not miss the former liturgy – argued in a 1966 letter to the editor that the new liturgy must be considered a failure on its own terms:

The failure of the liturgical changes to inspire the participation of significant numbers of the laity was confirmed by another letter to the editor that same year, again from a woman who supported the New Liturgy:

Fig 13 – National Catholic Reporter, January 25, 1967, page 10. Scan via Catholic News Archive and Newspapers.com, public domain.

In early 1967, the National Catholic Reporter convened a panel discussion of six prominent clerics, laymen, and writers who represented the general spectrum of political, theological, and liturgical opinions. The goal was to facilitate a discussion on the hottest topics and most divisive issues, and to publish a transcript of the discussion in a series titled “Issues that Divide the Church.”

On the topic of the liturgy, almost every member of the panel expressed their belief that the liturgical reforms had failed (each for different reasons, in accordance with their ideological leanings or preferences):

Fig 14 – The discussion panel assembled by NCR for the “Issues that Divide The Church” series. National Catholic Reporter, February 8, 1967, page 5. Scan via Catholic News Archive and Newspapers.com, public domain.

Another panelist was Daniel Callahan, the editor of Commonweal magazine. In August 1967, Callahan published a provocative article in the National Catholic Reporter titled “Putting the Liturgy in its Place.”[71] The piece ran to more than 5,000 words and argued that the liturgical reforms were a failure – for different reasons than claimed by conservatives or traditionalists[72] – and that this failure had proven beyond doubt that the foundational theological and practical premises of the liturgical reform itself were mistaken. 

Callahan’s arguments were lengthy and multifaceted, but can be broadly summarized in two points:

Even select quotations from Callahan’s article are too lengthy to include in the main body of this piece, but I have produced some of them in an appendix below. Callahan’s article prompted immediate and widespread reaction. Many letters and opinion articles in response were sent to NCR in the following weeks, including the following examples.

Father Aidan Kavanagh, OSB, was the director of the graduate program of liturgical studies at the University of Notre Dame and an influential figure in shaping the liturgical life of the United States in the decades after the council. Kavanagh disagreed with Callahan in part, but agreed with his central thesis: 

Celia Hubbard, director of the Botolph Center for Contemporary Religious Art in Boston and a nationally known figure in the artistic community, agreed with Callahan on a number of levels:

The sentiments expressed by Hubbard, namely that the liturgical reform was useless unless there was dramatic interior transformation of each Catholic first, were not unique to her. This was another refrain that developed during these interim years as supporters of conciliar reform attempted to find explanations for why the liturgical reforms were failing to produce the promised results. Father Donald Pugliese, SJ, assistant director of the Cambridge Center for Social Studies, put this even more explicitly at a lecture in early 1967:

Again and again, those who championed the reforms and wanted to see more progress made public comments which revealed that the new liturgy was failing to have the expected effect on the laity. Joseph R. Thomas, managing editor of the Catholic Advocate diocesan newspaper, wrote in 1967 that despite the considerable speed with which the reforms were being implemented in the United States (among the fastest in the world[76]):

Some of the most prominent figures in the implementation of the liturgical changes in the United States even went so far as to say, publicly, that the liturgical reforms were at a dead end and even seemed to suggest that things were better, in some ways, before any of the changes had been made. For example: in 1964, president of the National Liturgical Conference Father Gerard S. Sloyan had hailed the introduction of English as the long-awaited triumph of the liturgical movement and a watershed moment which upended centuries of previous liturgical customs: 

Almost exactly four years later, Sloyan seemed to have changed his tune in a rather significant way:

Sloyan also attended and spoke at the 1968 Louisville “Archdiocesan Congress on Evolving Worship,” which was attended by more than 10,000 people. At the conference, Sloyan advocated for radical liturgical change “on the local level” (i.e. experiments outside the boundaries of the current liturgical books and permissions) because the mainstream revised liturgy had obviously failed to do what was necessary and “he [could] see no leadership in this area coming from the national hierarchy or the Holy See in the immediate future.”[80]

Another speaker at this conference was Father Robert Hovda, a prominent national liturgist and the editor of the Bulletin of the Liturgical Conference. Hovda likewise proclaimed the liturgical reforms to be a failure:

Fig 15 – The Catholic Transcript, May 10, 1968, page 6. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

This study of the years 1964-1968 has demonstrated that many priests and members of the commentariat were decidedly lacking in pastoral manner and empathetic generosity towards members of the laity who struggled to understand and accept the new liturgy. Despite calls for patience and understanding, the messages that predominated in the official Catholic press and public discourse during these years were increasingly harsh demands for the laity to quietly obey, coupled with dismissive, sarcastic, and antagonistic responses to their questions or letters.

These responses from priests and those who enthusiastically supported the liturgical reforms were unfeeling and authoritarian to a surprising degree. But they are seem even more surprising, or difficult to understand, when juxtaposed with the common arguments made during those years: that these changes were being made primarily – and in some cases almost exclusively – for the benefit of the laity themselves. 

If the clergy had hoped to convince the laity to accept something which was believed to be for their own good, and which was apparently designed for their specific benefit, surely it could have been foreseen that a campaign of public mockery, name-calling, rudeness, and ostracism would be less than successful in winning over the unconvinced?

What is more, we have seen multiple examples of the laity testifying in their own words that even though they did not like the changes, or were deeply disturbed or confused by them, they still earnestly attempted to accept them and participate in them for months or years – all while enduring critical comments or flippant dismissals from the pulpit or in the diocesan newspaper. In light of all of this, one cannot help but wonder: was such a pastoral approach truly necessary or unavoidable? What could the implementation or acceptance of the initial liturgical changes have looked like if things had been handled differently?

This survey has also demonstrated, using many hitherto uncited primary sources, that by 1966 there was a widespread and growing sense that something had gone wrong with the post-conciliar liturgical reform among the hierarchy and proponents of changes. This was something categorically different from the unhappiness and confusion experienced by the laity who did not like the changes, did not want the changes, and struggled with spiritual desolation and cognitive dissonance as they attempted to “obey” despite their unhappiness. 

Unlike these unhappy layfolk, the priests and bishops who most clearly articulated a sense that something had gone wrong were those who supported the liturgical changes and had expected them to be more universally welcomed and to produce different – and more obviously positive – results. The record of clerical commentary and opinion columns between 1965 and 1968 suggests that this recognition that something had gone awry (or, as one bishop would later phrase it, that “the results have been quite different from those anticipated”[82]) directly contributed to the decidedly unpastoral and authoritarian manner used by so many clergy and supporters of the liturgical reform towards those who struggled to accept it.

In other words, the failure to generously and patiently assist the laity during the implementation of the initial liturgical changes and the sense that the changes had failed were not separate phenomena but rather, at least in part, mutually reinforcing. Recognition that the changes were not working as expected (or being received as expected) inclined champions of the reforms to be increasingly harsh with those members of the laity who embodied the failure by their hesitancy, confusion, or resistance.

Msgr. Robert Casey even confirmed the principles of this “feedback loop” in one of his columns:

There is one final aspect that is particularly striking.

In their public assessments of gloom, dismay, and failure from notable men like Greeley, Sheerin, Davis, Bouyer, Sloyan, and Hovda, not once did they mention that a complete revision of the Roman Missal was in the works, the definitive revised liturgy which would be the long-planned culmination and fulfillment of the liturgical reform initiated by the Second Vatican Council. Their dire assessments of the results and failure of the post-conciliar reform were never tempered or ameliorated by the reminder that the full and complete liturgical reform had not yet even been implemented or tried. They offered no hopeful comments that the problems and failures of the temporary “interim” revisions would be set right once the real, true, lasting liturgical reform was published. By their telling, in their public words, there was apparently no light at the end of the tunnel, no ‘new’ New Liturgy on the horizon which would rescue the failed liturgical reform.

This is remarkable and deserving of further reflection. It also seems to further confirm and contextualize what this series studied in Parts 1 and 3: that the initial liturgical changes implemented in 1964 and 1965 were universally received as the post-conciliar “New Mass,” that subsequent changes were viewed as minor installments in a series of seemingly interminable tinkering that followed the arrival of the new liturgy, and that very few people – including bishops – were aware of impending plans for “a definitive renewal of the entire Missal” that would be the real revised liturgy as intended by the council.

This is the end of Part 4 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 3, and the Series Conclusion.

[1] As attested to by those at the time: “By this time, just about everything that could be said or written about the liturgical renewal to be effected through the introduction of the vernacular in the Church’s worship on Nov. 29 has either been said from the pulpit or written about in the Catholic press.” See Rev. Andrew Breines, “The Parishioner and Liturgical Renewal,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, November 28, 1964, page 3. For a big picture analysis of these newspaper coverage trends, see https://handmissalhistory.com/newmass1964part1/

[2] “Archbishop Hallinan says: Liturgy task for all,” The Catholic Transcript, August 27, 1964, front page.

[3] “Liturgy task for all,” front page.

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

[5] “‘Bullying’ of Liturgical Conservatives Called Wrong Approach by Noted Trappist,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, November 28, 1964, page 26.

[6]  “Masses in English Starting Tomorrow,” Janesville Weekly Gazette, November 28, 1964, page 5. Some dioceses chose similar approaches, e.g. Monterey-Fresno which mandated only one English Mass on Sundays plus weekday Masses with schoolchildren, see “One English Mass per Sunday, Weekday,” NCWC News Service, September 17, 1964, wire copy (domestic) page 7. By contrast, the Archdiocese of Chicago mandated the use of vernacular at all low masses where the laity were present, and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis forbade all traditional Latin High Masses without exception, see “Vernacular Mass Mandatory In Chicago,” Pittsburgh Catholic, October 22, 1964, page 5, and “Learn To Sing Like Protestants,” NCWC News Service, January 21, 1965, wire copy (domestic) page 14.

[7] “Such participation is demanded of the faithful by their baptismal commitment. Conversely, failure to take part fully and actively is indicative of unfaithfulness of one’s baptismal commitment. This is perhaps the strongest statement in the entire decree. Therefore, there is no longer any choice between celebrations involving the “active participation of the faithful” and a celebration in which the faithful are inactive. The parish Sunday Mass of convenience must now be replaced by the Mass of participation.” See Rev. Andrew Breines, “Liturgical Pattern for Renewal,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, November 7, 1964, page 3.

[8] Rev. Andrew Breines, “Implementation of the New Liturgy in Parishes,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, January 23, 1965, page 3.

[9] “Tells People To Adjust: Pope Says Liturgy Reforms Take Time,” The Lake Shore Visitor, January 22, 1965, page 5.

[10] “Pope Asks Cooperation Of People In Changes,” The Voice, March 5, 1965, page 4, and “New Changes In The Liturgy Affect Celebrant Primarily,” The Voice, March 5, 1965, page 6. No official English translation of this audience was ever released, so newspapers and officials quoted a variety of translations which differed slightly from each other. This audience was quoted and translated twice in the cited issue of the Voice, in two different sections. The quote before the ellipsis is from page 4, and the quote after the ellipsis is from page 6. The Italian text of the audience is available on the Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19650113.html

[11] “Pope Tells Complainers: STOP,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, January 23, 1965, page 2.

[12] “On consulting the faithful,” The National Catholic Reporter, August 25, 1965, page 3. This is a quote from a letter sent to the editors of NCR by an unnamed “Mother General of a religious congregation.”

[13] “Catholic Traditionalist Movement Welcomed,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, April 5, 1965, page 5. There are numerous other examples which illustrate that these kinds of remarks were commonplace:

[14] “Predicts Song at All Masses Eventually,” NCWC News Service, June 22, 1965, wire copy (domestic) page 2b.

[15] Rev. John Doran, “Accepting Liturgy Changes,” The Catholic Commentator, February 26, 1965, page 4.

[16] “On consulting the faithful,” The National Catholic Reporter, August 25, 1965, page 3.

[17] “I’m writing this letter in regard to your beautiful article pertaining to the new liturgy. By beautiful, I mean that there are a few great hypocrites left like you. Also there are few who are bold, or should I put it, ignorant, enough to publicly denounce the ideas of the Vatican. . . . You ought to be proud of yourself. You got your name mentioned at First Friday Mass during the sermon . . . [o]ur priest is not happy with you and I doubt any Catholic is either. By Catholic I mean a person who is baptized and loves his religion enough to accept the Pope’s word. (Also, the Pope is the visible head of our church, representing Christ on earth: another medal for you sir, you are so brave and good that you can publicly denounce Christ also. . . . Another medal: putting your reader’s letters in the paper showed that there are a great deal of cowards who needed you, to first say something against the liturgy before they would say anything. My, what a wonderful leader. Did no one write a letter saying how much they liked the new liturgy and how ignorant you were to say you were dissatisfied with it?  People of your caliber cannot be influenced to change your mind so it is useless to try to explain why you are obliged to accept the new liturgy without comment. I’m sure that since you do not like the way in which Catholics now celebrate the Mass you will just discontinue your visits to the church. Any misguided hypocrite would do the same. Silence is a virtue. Do you have any?” See Dick Nolan, “Fresh Winds of Opposition,” The San Francisco Examiner, December 15, 1964, page 29.

[18] Nolan, “Fresh Winds of Opposition,” page 29.

[19] Examples of this sentiment can be found in many different letters to the editor. To give several examples:

[20] “Letters to the Editor: Obscure or Fraud,” St. Louis Review, February 26, 1965, page 14.

[21]  “Letters to the Editor: Company of Millions,” The Catholic Northwest Progress, May 13, 1966, page 5.

[22]  Dom Gregory Murray, “What The Laity Want,” The Tablet, March 14, 1964, page 303.

[23] “Changes in the Mass,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, February 27, 1965, page 2. The editors had attempted to promote this line of thinking even before the implementation of the first changes, writing in November 1964: 

[24] “Bishop O’Connor Explains Decree On Liturgy,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, October 17, 1964, page 4.

[25] “How To Take The Changes,” The Advocate, February 18, 1965, ‘Topic’ section page 1.

[26] Msgr. George Casey, “‘What is right’ may change tomorrow,” The St. Louis Review, March 5, 1965, page 18.

[27] “Italian Critics Asked To Accept New Mass,” The True Voice, March 12, 1965, front page.

[28] Conway wrote his Question Box feature for 20 years, and by the 1960s it ran in more than 50 diocesan Catholic newspapers throughout the nation as well as national periodicals like Our Sunday Visitor. It was seen by millions of Catholics every week – in 1963, OSV alone had a weekly circulation of 1.1 million. This made Conway one of the most prominent and widely distributed clerical columnists in the entire English-speaking world. See “Msgr. Conway dies; wrote ‘Question Box’,” The Catholic Bulletin, February 10, 1967, page 2.

[29] Conway served as pastor of several churches in the diocese including St. Thomas More in Iowa City, Iowa, St. Mary in Davenport, Iowa, and as the director of the Catholic Student Center at the University of Iowa. He also served as the Judicial Vicar and Chancellor of the Diocese of Davenport, the president of the Canon Law Society of America, and a member of the advisory board of the National Liturgical Conference.

[30] In the words of Msgr. John Quinn, one-time judicial vicar of the Archdiocese of Chicago and himself an official conciliar peritus, offered in reflection on Conway’s life in 1967: “The death of Msgr. J. D. Conway is a great loss to the Church not only in the United States, but everywhere, because his influence was as extensive as the Catholic press. His informative and provocative writings were in harmony with the pulsating spirit ushered into the Church by Pope John XXIII. Long before the Second Vatican Council, was asking the right kind of questions . . . He was in tune with the Church of Vatican II. He enjoyed every minute he spent at the Council and I am sure his efforts to make the Council and its spirit come alive will continue to be a great leaven in the Church.” See “Tributes to Msgr. Conway,” The Catholic Messenger, February 23, 1967, page 4.

[31] Msgr. J.D. Conway, “The Question Box: Why Is Change In Liturgy of Church Necessary?,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, November 14, 1964, page 22.

[32] Conway, “Why Is Change In Liturgy of Church Necessary?,” page 22.

[33] See, for example, conciliar peritus and Catholic New World editor Rev. John B. Sheerin’s column “One Latin Mass in Every Church” (Lake Shore Visitor, January 21, 1966, page 5) in which he openly mocked and caricatured the request by traditionalist Catholics to have one Latin Mass in each parish as an option. This request, so derided by Sheerin, does not appear to have been so outlandish; many bishops in the British Isles and Australia implemented just such a policy in 1965 and 1966. For more, see: https://handmissalhistory.com/newmass1964part3/#_tc3.1

[34] For a sampling of these sentiments, see “Tributes to Msgr. Conway,” The Catholic Messenger, February 23, 1967, page 4.

[35] “Sad Convert Chides Conway,” National Catholic Reporter, February 10, 1965, page 4.

[36] Msgr. J.D. Conway, “A Worried Catholic Sums Up His Fears: What Is Happening to the Church?,” St. Louis Review, June 11, 1965, page 15.

[37] Conway, “A Worried Catholic,” page 15.

[38] “Letters to the editor: Dissenter to New Liturgy Gives Views,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, January 30, 1965, page 4.

[39] Msgr. J.D. Conway, “The Question Box: Logical reasons sought to explain Church changes,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, August 28, 1965, page 22.

[40] Rev. J.D. Conway, “The Question Box,” The Catholic Commentator, September 24, 1965, page 5. Regarding the quote of Pope Paul VI, Conway is quoting from the pope’s address from the Angelus on March 7, 1965, which does not appear to have been officially translated into English. The remarks are available in Italian on the Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/angelus/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_ang_07031965.html

[41] Msgr. J.D. Conway, “The Question Box: All About The Liturgy,” The Catholic Commentator, September 24, 1965, page 5.

[42] In 1966, one layman described in the onslaught of “propaganda” from the clergy during these years, telling the laity against their own recollections that they (the laity) had never actually liked or understood the Mass before the liturgical changes:

[43] Lucile Hasley, “The Mood of the Laity: How Are Catholics Reacting to the New Liturgy? Part 2: Dialogue With Myself,” The Critic, February/March 1965, page 60.

[44] Rev. Francis X. Weiser, SJ, “Upset about New Liturgy?,” The Catholic Transcript, Feb 11, 1965, page 17.

[45] “Poll show ‘sense of community’ rise among Catholics,” NCWC News Service, May 25, 1966, wire copy (domestic) page 11.

[46] Even when priests or columnists did not directly doubt the sincerity of the laity who were confused, many of them admitted that they thought the complaints meritless and found it difficult to legitimately understand or sympathize with the laity. Take, for example, a 1966 column by Rev. Gordon B. Wadhams, the former rector of  the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection in New York City, who converted to Catholicism in 1949 and was a columnist in the Catholic Transcript:

[47] Msgr. George W. Casey, “Not Just the Church: The Whole World Is Changing,” St. Louis Review, February 24, 1967, page 14.

[48] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 10.

[49] One example was Dr. John J. Kane, head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame, and a syndicated advice columnist. One layman seeking Kane’s help wrote: “I’ve tried to be patient about the new liturgy but I’ve reached the end of my rope. I’m a 65 year-old man who has always been a devout Catholic. Today I am too distracted to pray with commentators telling me what to do, the priest facing the people, part of the Mass in English and more to come. I feel as though the Church in which I was reared is gone forever.” Kane’s response was not deliberately rude, but was somewhat condescending and seemed to ultimately amount to “just try harder to understand the changes.” Kane wrote, in part: “One of the problems in getting old is that most of us tend to reject change. Incidentally, one of the problems in youth is that we embrace change, sometimes too quickly. . . . But change comes hard and there is no question that you do feel the Church is not the same. But you probably do understand logically why the changes were made and the hoped for results. If you don’t, then make an honest effort to do so . . . Age doesn’t mean complete inability to adjust to change. It usually means it is more difficult. With patience and time, you will become accustomed to the new liturgy and in a few years, it will seem as though it was always so.” See John J. Kane, “Family Clinic: Mass Changes Are Perplexing,” The Catholic Transcript, April 29, 1965, page 14.

[50] One example was the editorial board of The Tablet, an English Catholic newspaper. In February 1965, the editors of The Tablet asked for Latin Masses and the new liturgy to be permitted to coexist (“… 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). Three months later, in response to the foundation of the first Traditionalist organization in Britain, the editors wrote the following sympathetic and conciliatory account:

[51] One example would be Rev. Elmo Romagosa, the founding editor of the Clarion Herald, the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Although clearly in favor of the liturgical changes, Romagosa evinced an earnest sympathy and real understanding towards those who did not. In 1966, he wrote: “Admittedly these restorations of the people’s language have not pleased everyone. Many would prefer a Latin Mass. They dislike being disturbed by people praying and singing aloud. They abhor being told like children when to sit and stand. (I must confess that I share their abhorrence on this last point!) Though I do not share their preferences for Latin and for silence, I do respect their right to dislike English and congregational participation. Zealots who would seek to read them out of the Church because of their preference for Latin and silence are forgetful that God did not cast all humans in the same mold.” See Rev. Elmo Romagosa, “87 Sundays Ago,” The Clarion Herald, August 19, 1966, page 4.  In a December 1967 column, Romagosa wrote a ‘Christmas List to Santa’, expressing the good things he hoped would come to a list of named people and groups, including: “For Pope Paul — an abundance of divine guidance and good health safely to lead the Church in these troubled times. For Archbishop Hannan — a money-stretcher and a vocation-multiplier . . . For traditionalists — an overflow crowd at St. Pat’s Latin Mass. For progressives — Masses where the whole congregation sings enthusiastically. For missal publishers — a guarantee from the Vatican that no more changes will take place in the Mass for five years.” See Rev. Elmo Romagosa, “A Christmas List,” The Clarion Herald, December 21, 1967, page 4.

[52] “Liturgical reform? These answers can be reduced to two categories. The first category is that of the answers in a certain confusion and therefore a certain annoyance is noted. Previously, say these observers, we were peaceful, each one could pray as he liked, everything was known regarding the unfolding of the rite. Now everything is novelty, surprise, change; even the ringing of the sanctus bell is abolished. And then there are those prayers which one cannot find. Communion is received standing. And there is the close of the Mass which ends abruptly with the blessing. Everybody gives the answers; there are many movements, rites and readings recited in a loud voice. Well, there is no peace left and we understand even less than before, and so on.  We will not criticize these observations, because we should have to show that they reveal little understanding of the sense of the religious rites and give us an inkling not of a true devotion and a true sense of the significance and of the value of holy Mass, but rather of a certain spiritual indolence, which does not want to make any personal effort of intelligence and participation in order to understand better and to fulfill better the most sacred of religion acts, with which we are asked, and indeed obliged, to associate ourselves.” See “Pope On The Liturgy,” NCWC News Service, March 22, 1965, wire copy (documentary service) page 1.

[53] Jubilee vol 14, no 1 (May 1966), back cover.

[54] Rev. Andrew Greeley, “Pessimism Rampant,” The Catholic Northwest Progress, June 2, 1967, page 4.

[55] Rev. John B. Sheerin, “Six Years After Council: Meditation on a Mess,” The New World, October 9, 1968, page 4.

[56] Msgr. John F. Davis, “What went wrong?,” The Catholic Advocate, October 31, 1968, page 20.

[57] La Décomposition du catholicisme (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1968).

[58] “Louis Bouyer shifted from an ecstatic response to Sacrosanctum Concilium in his 1964 The Liturgy Revived: A Doctrinal Commentary of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, to near despair by the end of the decade.” See Matthew Levering, “Afterword,” The Word On Fire Vatican II Collection (Park Ridge: Word on Fire Institute, 2021), page 352.

[59] Louis Bouyer, The Decomposition of Catholicism (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press), 1969, pp. 105-106.

[60] “Does the church suffer today? Sons, most beloved sons! Yes, the church is today undergoing a trial by great sufferings!  But how, after the council? Yes, after the council! The Lord is testing us. The church suffers, as you know, from the oppressive lack of legitimate freedom in many countries in the world. It suffers from the abandonment of many Catholics of the faithfulness which it would deserve through age-old tradition and the pastoral effort, full of understanding and of love, should obtain for it. It suffers above all from the restless, critical, indocile and destructive insurgency of so many of its sons, the most beloved — priests, teachers, laymen dedicated to the testimony of the living Christ in the living church — against its intimate and indispensable communion, against its institutional resistance, against its canonical norm, its tradition, its inner cohesion; against its authority, the irreplaceable principle of truth, of unity, of charity; against its very demands of sanctity and sacrifice (cf. Boyer: “La decomposition du Catholicisme,” 1968); it suffers from the desertion and from the scandal of certain ecclesiastics and religious who are crucifying the church.” See “Church Is Suffering Christ’s Passion,” St. Louis Review, April 11, 1969, page 15. An Italian version of the audience can be found on the Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1969/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19690402.html

[61] “Holy Father to the Pontifical Lombard Seminary,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition), December 19, 1968, page 3.

[62] “Church ‘self-demolition’ worries Pope in talk,” Pittsburgh Catholic, December 13, 1968, page 6. The English edition of the L’Osservatore Romano gave a slightly different English translation of these words: “The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is like an acute and complex interior upheaval, that no one expected after the Council. One thought of a blossoming, a serene expansion of the mature concepts of the Council. But as they saying goes: ‘Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu.’ This sad aspect has become most notable. The Church is wounding herself.” See “Holy Father to the Pontifical Lombard Seminary,” page 3. It seems worthy of note that a year after this speech, the pope still publicly admitted that some things clearly were going wrong but it appeared that he wished to downplay or backtrack against his previously stated assessment of self-demolition. At his weekly general audience on September 17, 1969, “[t]he pope admitted that some of the efforts of renewal have not been successful” and said that “not a few symptoms seem to foreshadow great misfortunes for the Church… It will take time to extract all that may be good even in these restless or aberrating expressions of Catholic life and to reabsorb them in harmony. There are some who have even talked of the decomposition of the Church. We do not share this opinion and once more confirm our trust in the assistance of Christ and in the help of all that is good.” See “Pope Says Dissent May Have Gone Too Far,” NC News Service, September 18, 1969, wire copy (foreign) page 14.

[63] Msgr. J.D. Conway, “The Question Box: On Popular Devotions,” The Catholic Advocate, February 10, 1966, page 6.

[64] Conway, “On Popular Devotions,” page 6.

[65] “Letters to the Editor: Council Courage,” The St. Louis Review, April 29, 1966, page 20.

[66] “Letters to the Transcript: All Join In,” The Catholic Transcript, September 2, 1966, page 3.

[67] “Issues that Divide the Church,” National Catholic Reporter, March 1, 1967, page 6.

[68] “Issues that Divide the Church,” National Catholic Reporter, March 1, 1967, page 7.

[69] “Issues that Divide the Church,” page 7.

[70] “Issues that Divide the Church,” page 7.

[71] Daniel Callahan, “Putting the Liturgy in its Place,” National Catholic Reporter, August 9, 1967, page 5.

[72] Some who self-identified as “progressive”, like Callahan, believed that the liturgical reforms were nowhere close to new or radical enough, and therefore did not even rise to the level of a truly revised liturgy. As one such layman put it in January 1968:

[73] Rev. Aidan Kavanagh, “Blaming the Liturgy is Too Simple,” National Catholic Reporter, August 23, 1967, page 6.

[74] Celia Hubbard, “Let’s stop building churches to continue a dream world,” National Catholic Reporter, August 23, 1967, page 6.

[75] “Priest Urges Radical Change in Church Life: Says Experiments Necessary,” The Lake Shore Visitor, February 24, 1967, page 2.

[76] “The fact is that post-conciliar renewal in the U.S., while it could be going at a faster gait, is progressing more rapidly than it is in almost any other country except the Netherlands and Canada. . .” see Joseph R. Thomas, “The Pace of Renewal,” The Catholic Advocate, October 12, 1967, page 10.

[77] Thomas, “The Pace of Renewal,” page 10. This sentiment strongly echoes other commentary by those who feared the liturgical reforms would fail: “Unless an intensive educational program of liturgical training is implemented … the changes in external form will make little difference. The Mass in English will atrophy and the same kind of apathy will develop toward it as did toward the Latin rite prior to Vatican II.” see William J Farrell, “Student involvement in the liturgy,” in The Catholic World, July 1967, page 204.

[78] “English Due in Sacraments, Sacramentals,” NCWC News Service, August 20, 1964, wire copy (domestic) page 1.

[79] “Disclaims Liturgies Only For Social Revolutionaries,” NC News Service, August 21, 1964, wire copy (domestic) page 12.

[80] “Liturgy Said At Dead End In Renewal,” The Catholic Transcript, May 10, 1968, page 3.

[81] “Liturgy Said At Dead End In Renewal,” page 3. These comments by Sloyan and Hovda align with other comments at this time, further reinforcing the widespread sense among progressives and supporters of the reforms that the official liturgy was ‘dead’ and the only hope was unofficial experimentation. For example, Father Andrew Greeley, commenting in a panicked manner on news that a large number of bishops at the 1967 Synod of Bishops had reacted strongly against newly proposed liturgical changes, said: “It would appear therefore that as far as the official Church is concerned the liturgical renewal is grinding to a full stop.” See Rev. Andrew Greeley, “It’s Too Late to Stop Liturgical Progress,” The Catholic Advocate, February 1, 1968, page 8.

[82] This quote by Archbishop John Wheaton of Hartford, Connecticut, was concerned with the introduction of the Saturday evening Vigil masses which fulfilled Sunday mass obligation but is a useful and memorable example of similar observations made about the initial liturgical changes: “Speaking at a varia session at the spring meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Chicago last week, Archbishop Wheaton said the results have been quite different from those anticipated . . . ‘A major reason for starting the Vigil masses,’ he said, ‘was to make it possible for some Catholics forced to work on Sunday to attend Mass.’ But, he added, ‘I have not seen any increase in Sunday Mass participation as a result of this permission.’” See “Does Vigil permission increase Mass attendance?” The Catholic Transcript, May 14, 1976, page 3.

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

Selected excerpts from Daniel Callahan’s article “Putting the Liturgy in its Place,” published in the National Catholic Reporter on August 9, 1967, page 5:

• Follow us on Twitter

• About
• Contact
• Donate
• Features
• Home