*first post* Effective status of Tridentine Mass after 1964

[Dovekin]

Thanks for your response. I understand the frustration of reading what you consider to be “half-truths, or even outright falsehoods.”

Most of your comments are frustrations with what happened, not misrepresentations. Only #10 addresses the description instead of what happened. Are the other comments about things you were unaware of?

Thanks for answering.

 

[27lw]

Well, they are factual things that happened, but I don’t like to read about them, because I would prefer that they hadn’t happened (or in the way that they happened). The same way I don’t like reading about the machinations of the Soviet Union, or the riots of the 1960s, or other negative events. They exist, they’re history, but I don’t like reading about these things.
He writes about these disturbing things in a positive way, I think, and he writes about the old liturgy in a derogatory way.
I also think that he admits a rather large problem – the Church allowed these seismic changes, without considering all the intended consequences, and whether the changes would be positive or negative. It’s like they just set the changes in motion, “oops!” without a long-term plan, which seems short-sighted at best.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

What was depressing?

I don’t know, pretty much everything in it? Just highlights what a mess Vatican II and the ‘60s made of everything. And it’s depressing that a priest (who teaches at a university no less) thinks it’s all good, and that the Church only held the line on contraception and similar issues out of stubbornness and because they didn’t want to admit they were wrong. He seems to believe that truth is changeable and/or that the Magisterium is a joke.