Abbey-Roads2

You say you want a revolution…

Everyone likes to blame the baby-boomers for all the liberalism we have become accustomed to in the Church today.  Few realize it all started long before the boomers were even capable of expressing a revolutionary thought.  How many young people today understand that the push for liturgical reform, modernizing the liturgy, and using the vernacular was a desire experimented with before the Council?  How many people realize that it was Pius XII who called for women religious to modify their habits to adapt to the demands of modern life, such as the nuns who drove cars or worked in medicine?  (Although later, many modified themselves out of the habit entirely.)

When I was in grade school, the nuns taught us - way back then - songs such as ”Kumbaya” - and we listened to the Congolese Missa Lubaand had to sing Negro spirituals.  (Although black kids in the class were disciplined until they spoke without an “accent”.)  I think it was probably the missionary sisters who came back to the motherhouse with stories of how fervent the African Catholics were, and how much the native people enlivened the liturgy with their exuberant participation and singing, which motivated the sisters to jump on board as regards the reform of the liturgy.  When Vatican II came along, it was a dream come true for a good share of them.

I di’n't know nothin’ ’bout Civil Rights.

Then in the very late 1950’s, early 1960’s the nuns began to get deeply involved in politics - in and through the Civil Rights movement.  (Of course, we had a Catholic President then as well.)  The nuns marched alongside priests and ministers, protesting segregation and demanding the right to vote for black people.  Without doubt it was a good thing, except, in the mid-’60’s the revolutionary spirit suddenly crept into the convent, along with a strong feminist understanding of power, individualism, and independence.  Which happens to be another reason why we have the American Catholic Church we have today.

“Yes Sister, whatever you say Sister!”

So don’t put all the blame on boomers - blame the Sisters of St. Joseph of Margaret Sanger, and the other storm trooperorders who taught us.  (After all, many of them were from the same generation as my parents and your grandparents.)  Funny, what they subsequently failed to realize, their habits spoke louder than words.

(Disclaimer:  The religious women who taught us are to be highly praised for their sacrifice and dedication, no doubt about it.  Just as they ought to be commended and honored for their heroic work in the Civil Rights struggle.  This has been my personal reflection on what, in part,  may have contributed to the decline of religious life in the U.S., as well as an offering towards understanding why the American Catholic Church got to be so liberal.) 

[Update: 7/31/07 - I just found a post at Cafeteria is Closed on this subject; an article by Benedict Groeschl in First Things, discussing the theological and psychological dynamics at work in the decline of established religious communities in the U.S..] 

“The times, they are a’changin’!” - Bob Dylan

I wondered what everyone would blog about after the Motu Proprio, (Summorum Pontificum) had been released.  Just as I thought, the blogs are reporting upon the “dissidents” who disagree with it or seem to be protesting it…in great - and at times - tiresome detail.

Not everyone who disagrees is a dissident mind you, and disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean disobedience or prohibition.  There has to be a period of adjustment, especially for older priests, religious and some of their bishops who have been trained for the past 40 years to look with suspicion upon traditional minded Roman Catholics and those who favored the TLM.  They were trained and educated to believe anything pre-Vatican II was evil, suppressed, out of date, reactionary - all of that nonsense.  And it must be remembered, they passed this instruction along to countless school children, college students, their parents - in short, the average person in the pew.

“A long time comin’…” - Crosby, Stlls, and Nash

Not a few of these people would never even categorize themselves as dissident, much less liberal Catholics.  Many, in good faith sincerely accepted the newer theologies, exclusive (inclusive?) peace and justice theories, freedom of conscience misconceptions, and experiments in liturgy, as the force and focus of Catholic teaching.  For instance, many honestly and sincerely believe clerical clothing and religious habits are no longer relevant to contemporary culture.  They believe Kumbaya liturgies with dancers and sway-to-the-beat inspirational music is good liturgy.   Many really do see the presence of Christ in the poor and the marginalized more realistically than in the Eucharistic species.  Remember, this has been the evolution of training many received for over 40 years now.

“A long time gone…” - Crosby, Stills, and Nash

Not a few have been so spiritually hijacked, they have become scandalized by the beautiful patrimony and mysticism of Catholic tradition, which is entering into a renaissance, or ‘new springtime’ as JPII called it.  They need time to adjust, and see, unlike the reforms of Vatican II, the “reform of the reform” is not an imposition, rather an invitation to a greater and more active participation in the fullness of the Mystical Body of Christ and centuries of genuine piety and holiness.  Many have lost the concept, the experience of the sacred…hence, it is foreign and perhaps even fearsome for many of them.  It is going to take some adjustment, and we shouldn’t mock or deride them for it, constantly goading them in their bewilderment.

All of us must have patience and great charity.  I think we ought to carefully ponder the Lord’s words today in the Gospel.  When asked if the weeds that infected the field of grain ought to be pulled up, Our Lord says, “No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the grain along with them.” (Matt. 13)

After 40 years of bad habits, it will take time and patience, humility and charity, to repair what was lost.      

Of Motu Poo-poo-ers and non-Catholics.

Ray of Stella Borealis sent me a link to Fr. Debruycker’s 2 Cents column from the St. Joan of Arc bulletin.  I liked it.  I thought it contained a certain wisdom, and was rather restrained, even sage-like.  Father’s column really deals with the Vatican clarification of the Catholic Church as the true Church, rather than the recent Motu Proprio on the TLM.  (I just wanted to use my term, Motu Poo-poo!) 

So a priest and a rabbi…

“I have been discussing the Pope’s statement about the primacy of the Roman Catholic faith with a variety of different friends. I asked my old friend Rabbi Oelnik his thoughts about the subject. Now some people think Rabbi Oelnik is my invisible friend, but I can tell you Dumbledore and Gandalf would disagree.

“So rabbi what do you think?”

“I’ll tell you. I am not a Rabbi because I think I am wrong. I am a very nice fellow but I believe what the scriptures say: that the people of Israel are a people chosen. I believe there are laws set in the scriptures by which I must live my life - ways to pray, ways to dress, ways to eat, ways to act. When I disagree with these teachings - and there are exceptions in emergencies - I must be able to tell myself and my people with good reason why.”

“So, your Pope believes he is not wrong either; it’s nice to know he believes in what he stands for. He must want you to clarify your exceptions and tell him why you are still Catholic. There is nothing more dishonest than to pretend you agree when you don’t. How can you ever make true progress?” “ - Fr. DeBruycker (Read the whole article.) 

The great divide.

I think the rabbi presents a valid point of view.  However, the arguing and protests he recommends seem to me to be rather pointless.  One can’t expect to change the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.  The discussion simply reinforces my view that the current Pope’s affirmation of Church teaching is a defining moment in Church history.  Some may see it as divisive, but Christ came for division (Luke 12: 51), and those dividing lines seem to be in the process of being delineated by those opposed to Benedict XVI.  (Although, let me be quick to say, I don’t believe Fr. DeBruycker is opposed to B16.  He is a good priest.)

It seems to me the Holy Father is simply putting on the brakes, with regard to liberal interpretations of Vatican II and Church discipline, and some heads (ideas) may just go through the windshield.

Habeamus Papam!

Many devout Catholics are familiar with the prophecy of St. John Bosco, as well as the revealed portion of the Third Secret of Fatima, so I won’t go into these matters here.  Except to say, I think Pope Benedict XVI might well be The Pope envisioned in these prophecies.

Reading the various reactions to the release of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum,  concerning the liturgy, as well as the latest clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, regarding the primacy of the Catholic Church, leads me to this conclusion.

“I have come, not for peace, but for division.” Luke 12: 51

Early in his pontificate, the Holy Father caused an outcry because of his speech concerning issues regarding Islam.  Now, dissident/progressivist elements in the Catholic Church, along with not a few Protestant brethren, seem to be outraged by his most recent documents.  What better sign do we have that there really is a counter-reform underway in the Church - the so-called the ‘reform of the reform’ - dedicated to restoring authentic worship, faith and morals, than the objection of those not in communion with the Magisterium?  With the reign of Benedict XVI we are now beginning to see the enemies of the Church, coming out of their closets, to establish their division lines against authentic Catholic teaching.  It’s a good thing.

Bosco’s dream.

In the vision of Don Bosco, little ships come to the embattled Pope’s aid.  Recently a small, sedevacantist group of nuns came back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church because they recognized in Benedict XVI the true Pope.  Orthodox Catholics have been the only group to praise the recent Vatican document clarifying the status of “churches” in relationship to Rome.  Perhaps these overtures can be recognised as the little ships coming to support the Roman Pontiff in Don Bosco’s vision?

(Note on Don Bosco’s dream;  Some analysts assert that two Popes fell before the third successor Pope, who subsequently ”docks” the ship, that is the Church, between the two columns representing the Eucharist and Our Lady.) 

I’m not Michael Brown - and this isn’t Spirit Daily, but the idea intrigues me.

(Photo:  Benedict XVI arriving in Cologne upon the prow of a ship.  Painting: The vision of Don Bosco.)

Coming late - leaving early. 

Locally, as in most metropolitan areas (not talking here about small towns), there are a few Catholic Churches that are bastions of orthodoxy and good liturgy.  Generally speaking, in some of the suburbs and in Minneapolis especially, it seems most of the Churches are typically middle of the road to “liberal” - what would we ever do without labels?

Anyway, today at Mass, I noticed that maybe 1/3 of the casually clad congregants left Mass after Communion. (Which is none of my business of course.)  I also noted that when the cantor was doing her warm up before Mass, about 3-5 minutes before the processional, the Church started to fill up - which suggests to me, most people show up just about the time Mass is to begin.  (Maybe to avoid the pre-show at the piano bar, I’m not sure.  I often think of Mel Brookes’ scene in the piano bar from “High Anxiety” during these warm ups.)

TLM

On my way home I mused over the impact of the Motu Proprio thing.  Like it’s really going to even have much of an impact on these people and local parishes?  It’s fairly obvious, that if a good proportion of the people show up to Mass minutes before it begins, and more than a few leave right after Communion, the traditional Latin Mass is so far off their radar screen, it is not funny.  I’m fairly certain, the average person in the pew just doesn’t care.  (And I’m not getting all Trautman on you here either.)

The Church doesn’t think, “short term” however, everything about this permission is focused on the long term.  So it is going to be a long while before mainstream parishes are willing and able to sit through a traditional Latin High Mass.  Most priests do not even know the rubrics or the Latin.

The olden days.

When I was little, it seemed a lot of people would go to the low Mass - which was much shorter than a High Mass.  Some priests had the reputation of “shot-gun” priests because they could zip through the Mass in no time, and had very short homilies. 

It was generally conceded that one could come into Mass any time before the Gospel and it would still count as fullfiling one’s Sunday obligation.  (I think that understanding is still present.)  It is true however, a few people would leave at Communion, despite the priest’s warnings about Judas doing the same thing at the Last Supper; although the other impatient ones normally waited until the priest disappeared into the sacristy.  I should mention however, an amazing number stayed behind to make a prolonged thanksgiving after Communion, light candles, etc..  (Many churches don’t have vigil lights any longer.)

So what does this mean?  I’m thinking it means that it is going to take a heck of a lot more than the Latin Mass to make fervent worshippers out of the average Catholic.  But the return to liturgical solemnity and devotion, as typified in the TLM is a great start, to be sure.  And those who come late, leave early?  They will always be around.

Cardinal Sean on the TLM:  “In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low. Additionally, according to the research that I did, there are only 18 priories of the Society of St. Pius X in the entire country. Therefore this document will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S. Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in
New England.” - Cardinal Sean O’Malley

Good for some, bad for others. 

So the Motu Propio is expected to be released July 7, 2007 - not to eclipse the Live Earth Concerts, to be sure.  Yet it will be like Christmas in July for some long suffering souls.  Whatever will the Traddies-in-waiting blog about after it’s release?  And what does it all mean?  To use the expression visionaries answer when asked if Our Lady’s warnings are good or bad; “It will be good for some, bad for others.”  Answering the question, what will everyone gossip about now?  One word; “plenty”.

Forgetting about those who are concerned the Novus Ordo will be forced into oblivion - that won’t happen; or the Bishops who fear they won’t have control over the liturgy - they always will; there are a myriad of Traditionalists who will have plenty to discuss and keep the liturgical debate hot and heavy.  The discussions, anticipation, impatience, speculations, and everything else that has been tossed around for all this time, aside from making some people look stupid, always comes down to this:  Wait and read the document and remain obedient to your Bishop.

The kalaidesope of Traditionalism. 

I’m not here to write about the MP.  My purpose here is to offer a glimpse into the labyrinth of Catholic Traditionalism - it isn’t an exhaustive list to be sure - just listing a few of the principal groups.  Although some Trads, like angels, are a species unto themselves.

The List:

Traditional Catholics:  The majority accept the Novus Ordo as a valid Mass, and will attend if they have to do so, but they prefer the Tridentine rite Mass and sacraments, etc..  Among this group are people who are highly suspicious of Vatican II, though accepting it, some remain dubious it was an infallible Council - the arguments are many and varied - however, they definitely accept the current reigning Pontiff and hierarchy as legitimate.   Some harbor reservations that the reforms of Vatican II led to the abuse and crises in the Church as regards liturgy and vocation issues.  A few resent the reforms and revisions to the Roman Missal under Pius XII and John XXIII as well.  All in all, they are perfectly good, balanced Catholics, in complete conformity with the teachings of the Church and perfectly obedient to their Bishops.

Rad-Trad:  This group often out and out refuse to accept the changes “perpetrated” by Vatican II, especially as regards the Mass, although they remain obedient to their Bishops and the Pope.  Many tend to regard all the reforms of Vatican II as the triumph of Modernism, so vehemently condemned by previous Popes, most notably Pius X.  They pretty much hold suspect much of the theological thought after 1960.  (I sure can’t hold that against them.)  These faithful souls would be some of the last people on earth willing to support the canonization of John Paul II, who definitely was not “great” in their eyes.  They remain, to be sure, faithful and devout Catholics nonetheless.

Feeneyites:  This is a complex division - overlooking the fact they carry a lot of baggage, within this group you can have all sorts of Trads, yet the one outstanding characteristic of Feeneyism is their tenacious hold onto the literal understanding of Catholic teaching;”There is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church” - no if’s, and’s, or but’s.  Feeney was excommunicated by Pius XII, but the excommunication was lifted shortly before he died by Paul VI.  (I wonder if it was the real Paul VI?)  Anyway, Feeney was known to be extremely antisemitic, yet his followers sometimes will dispute that.  The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are Feeneyites.  Feeneyites profess fidelity to the current reigning Pontiff and are in good standing within the Roman Catholic Church.

The groups briefly described above all enjoy union with the Roman Catholic Church and remain in good standing with the hierarchy.  Many, many good people consider themselves Traditionalists, and seem to be very holy people.  Their conscientious fidelity to the perennial teachings of the Church and Her tradition is invaluable to the body of Christ.  Within the Traditional movement, as I mentioned, exist a variety of personal beliefs which really cannot be sufficiently categorized by these brief generalizations.

Schismatics.

I won’t deal with these, except to list a couple of the groups briefly:

Sedevacantists:  The Chair of Peter is empty - Benedict is not a true Pope, no one has been since Pius XII.  This group, hardly unified, can be broken down into various sub-groups, too numerous to mention.  Within this classification are many dueling factions - it’s a mess - sometimes brilliant people, as well as arguments - but watch out!

Lefebvrism:  This is the SSPX-ers who are/are not in schism, depending which way the wind blows.  Some suspect the Motu Proprio was to placate them.  Not so much.  It would take a lot to make them happy, after all, most of them are more Catholic than the Pope.  That is a tough one to beat.

This has simply been my offering of a glimpse into the Trad Labyrinth - as I understand it - which is a complicated garden of Roman Catholicism - very beautiful indeed, but not all of the paths lead to Rome.  In itself, The Motu Proprio will do little to unify these groups, and please note,  I haven’t even included the progressivists on the other side of this divide - but that is because I consider myself to be a traditional Roman Catholic.  (And yet I like a well celebrated Novus Ordo Mass - go figure.)  

Photo:  Sacred Heart Cathedral, Rochester NY before renovation. 

Trying to be positive. 

As much as I try to be Pollyanna about things - or should I say, forever optimistic about the state of the Church in the United States, sometimes this attitude simply falls apart.  I hear things, I read things, and wonder how the Church got so protestant.

Touring various blogs that continually ’piss and moan’ about all the liturgical abuses, bad catechises, progressivist liturgists, joined by modernist bishops and priests, so on and so forth, I must admit, many of the writers have their points, and the complaints are valid.  I mean, I’ve known all of that - I’ve lived with this novelty crap  for 40 years.  I could be likened to a kid growing up in an abusive household, I’ve just been trying to cope, struggling to keep my faith.  I get so tired of hearing/reading all the constant bickering. 

Since the Council, the modernist reformers in the Catholic Church, sanctioned by Roman Catholic Hierarchy, have acheived - in a stunningly short time - what the original reformers of the so-called Protestant Reformation  started out to do in the 16th century.

Blogs of distinction.

Photo: Sacred Heart Cathedral after renovation.  Tell me it hasn’t been Protestant-ised.

Salve Regina has a rather objective, albeit revealing post on the wreck-ovations of Fr. Richard Vasko, which clearly demonstrate the influence of Protestant iconoclasm omnipresent in contemporary ecclesial design.  It is nothing short of heart breaking.

Bishop Trautman (Erie Diocese), who seems to have his finger upon the pulse of the average Catholic lay person, is in the news with his views on liturgical language.  Gerald has done a fine job of presenting the Bishop’s insightful views into the mind of the Catholic faithful, thinking out loud, as he does, for the person in the pew; so check Cafeteria is Closed for his take on things.  He of course links to Fr. Z as well as Diogenes for their expositions on the debate. (Most of you probably have already read their stuff,which sometimes is a bit too sarcastic for me to read on a regular basis, though I understand the need for someone to expose this crap.)

The dismantling of the Catholic faith was foreseen before the Council.

Rorate Caeli has a post on Bishop Trautman’s recent statements concerning the Bishop’s opinion regarding new liturgical translations.  Rorate Caeli counters these with Dom Prosper Gueranges’  warning regarding liturgical reform, written in the mid to late 19th century.  The decimation of liturgical cult, worship, devotion and Church design, begun by the Protestant Reform has finally found pride of place in the Roman Catholic Church - in Europe as well as the U.S. and elsewhere.  This is part of what Dom Prosper Gueranger wrote:

“We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being spoken in the way one speaks on the town square.…”- Dom Prosper Gueranger, taken from, Rorate Caeli 

On another blog, one commenter challenged another, asking what made her think that Protestantism has crept into the Catholic Church.  What kind of a dumb-ass question was that?

That’s all.

Policing the pews. 

Nothing turns off non-religious (and in some cases, religious) people more than when they run into the “holier-than-thou” types who are always focused upon correcting other people.  You know, the “Church lady” types who are not just members of the liturgy police, but keep their eyes on the faithful at Mass as well.  They tend to be authorities on just about everything Catholic - because they have read and studied every single Vatican document that was ever issued on the subject.  Many of us - yes me - have fallen into this spiritual pride that seeks to “instruct” the ignorant.  It is after all, a work of mercy.  (Maybe a ’severe mercy’ at times.)

Recently bloggers have posted about proper attire for Mass, I stepped in to call attention to the fact that people have to first understand what the Mass is - it is more than an obligation - as well as insisting the Mass should be celebrated devoutly, reasoning people would be more inclined to dress appropriately if they understood what was happening.  Few people seem to realize however, that despite how one is dressed, it may be a big deal they are even at Mass in the first place.  One never knows at what stage a person is at in their spiritual life.  

Skipping Mass on Sunday.

Another issue has raised its ugly, self-righteous, little head however.  I had heard it expressed in the past, by uber-Catholics I once worked with, and that is:  attending the anticipatory Mass for Sunday on Saturday evening!!!  It is so evil!!!  (Can you hear that cresendo?)  OH! MY! GOSH!  Some Catholics have the audacity to consistently attend Mass on Saturday evening.  And as the “holy of holies“ have it - it is merely a matter of convenience that they do so.  On one blog, a commentator has even stated that in such a case these scoundrels do not fulfill their Sunday obligation.  Tell the daily-Mass-attendee Grams and Gramps that - since it is often the elderly who attend the vigil Mass in my parish.  (Do I know if they attend Mass the next day?  It’s no one’s flipping business!)

One more thing for many to feel guilty about.  Ladies and gentleman, you are never going to measure up - face it - you are going to hell.  You walk into Church for the vigil Mass wearing shorts - it is a damnable slippery slope.

It is licit!

I have never heard a priest or a bishop say that attending the vigil Mass on Saturday was illicit.  For whatever reason the concession was permitted, it has never been suggested that a person fails to fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending the vigil Mass - no matter what the reason. 

Few people understand that liturgically, whether it be a major feast day, or a Sunday, the liturgy of the day commences with Vespers the evening before.  Hence, the vigil Mass is celebrated within the liturgical event - which is Sunday, or the proper solemnity of the following day. 

People can speculate their butts off as to the motivation or the devotion of those who attend vigil Masses - nevertheless it is permitted to them to do so.  If the local bishop or the USCCB permits it, it is licit. 

Watch your self-righteous step.

Some of these people may claim to be more Catholic than the Pope, but no one can claim to be more holy than the Church.

I once worked next door - the next cubicle - to a traditional Catholic woman, and she insisted she was more Catholic than the Pope.  She felt it her duty to set everyone straight about all the rubrics and Papal teachings as well as the Vatican documents.  In addition, she never batted an eye when she had to tell someone they were a bad Catholic or that they were going to hell.  She has now returned to her former ways however - she went back to Wicca.

John of the Cross speaks to this issue in his wonderful instructions to beginners in the spiritual life, when he writes:

“Sometimes they seek to instruct rather than being instructed; in their hearts (he might say, on their blogs) they condemn others who do not seem to have the devotion they would like them to have, and sometimes give expression to this criticism like the pharisee who despised the publican while he boasted and praised God for the good deeds he himself accomplished.” - Dark Night, 2:1

Isn’t that special!  

The secret of The Secret.

It’s out!  Fr. Zuhlsdorf watched Cardinal Bertone on Italian television tonight, displaying the envelopes containing the Third Secret of Fatima, showing on camera the written text, and explaining that the sheet on which Sr. Lucia had written was folded in fours, which may have misled people into believing there was just a short written text, or something to that effect.  (A few priests and religious have actually devoted their life to trying to figure out what the secret could be  - haven’t spiritual writers cautioned about undo curiosity about stuff like that?)  Whatever.  It is not the DaVinci Code here.

Get a grip!

A Cardinal of the Catholic Church is NOT going to go on public televsion and lie to the world about “The Secret”.  To imagine some cover-up by the Church, the Pope, and the Cardinal in the first place is absurd.  The people who promote these conspiracy theories and imaginings are out of line.  What they do is instill mistrust of the Holy Father and the Church.  They foment derision and division amongst the faithful.

What exactly is it that these people think is being covered up?  In short, many believe Our Lady foretold the disintegration of the Church after Vatican II.  For instance, they insist, it foretold of a Masonic riddled hierarchy, which dismantled the liturgy and opened the Church to ecumenism, preparing the world for a one world religion and the anti-Christ - hence these people believe it is this “they” want covered up.  Gosh - I hate to break it to them, but we all know and have witnessed the division and confusion in the Church - for several decades now - it hasn’t been much of a ”secret”.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf concludes his post with this comment:

“Of course what was seen on TV tonight doesn’t really resolve anything.  Still, some one bent on saying that there is more to the secret will have to explain how what Card. Bertone showed on TV was inadequate proof.” 

I say, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.  The essential elements of the message of Fatima were revealed long before 1960.  The requests of Our Lady are well known, she revealed what was necessary for the faithful which would aid in our sanctifcation and salvation.  The “Third Secret” was for the Holy Father in the first place, and up to him to disclose it or not, and John Paul II decided to reveal it.  He did!

And another thing.

This is one of the reasons why people ignore the Fatima message in the first place, because of all the nut-jobs associated with “the cult”.  Even when I was little, Blue Army people floated around in blue suits and dresses and chapel veils, looking like overly pious, scared-to-death people, certain the world was going to end the next day.  Not a few of them may yet be found in the more extreme Sede/Trad movements of today. 

That’s all. - as Miranda would say.