and otjm remembers a pre-Vatican II priest saying Mass intoxicated and yet still under fifteen minutes so everything done in the "spirit of Vatican II’ is groovy. Everybody dance.
If you don’t like the facts, that sounds like a personal problem. I never said anything at all about the “spirit of Vatican 2” and I take your comment to be not only incorrect but also libelous. As a matter of fact I have consistently ;opposed experimentation with the Mass, and have vigorously opposed those theologians who would stray frmm the Magisterium.
I’m not sure what I Believe actually believes in but here are the facts. The Catholic Church is in decline. The majority of Catholics are not Traditional, Progressive, or Neutral, they are Lapsed.
You are not saying anything I have not said repeatedly; except that you neglect to mention that the decline started in the 1950’s, long before Vatican 2 was even conceived of.
The majority of people who actually attend Sunday Mass don’t believe in the Real Presence.
That simply is untrue. The evidence is that they in large part are not able to use the technical language that the Roman rite has used, per Aquinas, because of poor catechesis; but there is no reliable evidence that they do not believe in the True Presence. Part of the problem was how the polls you are relying on were constructed.
Although I’m not aware of any surveys of Tradional Catholic belief in the Real Presence I’m willing to wager it is nearly if not completely perfect. If you can’t admit to the connection between Vatican II/Novus Ordo and our current state then you are either obtuse or harbouring an ulterior motive.
Your connection is simply constructed on a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument and ignores a multitude of factors that have occured over the last 40 years. It is simple minds which demand simple answers to complex questions, and throw up the defencse of “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”. One does not have to have an ulterior motive to understand that materialism, secualrism, the deconstruction of catechesis and the sexual revolution have had more to do with the vast number of people who have left the Church than any of the supposed issues which the tradionalists keep promoting, and do so because it advances their agenda.
It’s sad that I thought of liturgical abuse the moment I saw this clown picture. Progressives will talk about abuse occuring pre-Vatican II with drunk priests and express Masses. I suppose alcoholism may be easier to hide in the EF than OF but this is a red herring isn’t it? If the tempo of the Mass is the worst abuse that occurred pre-Vatican II then I believe the clown mass trumps it. CITH is another liturgical abuse and its affects are clearly described in the above paragraph.
I have yet to find anyone anywhere who can tell me date and parish specific where they have seen this alleged clown Mass. That it may have occured is entirely possible, given the vast stupidity that is inherent in humans. There are close to 19,000 parishes in the US; and the vast majority of Masses in the vast majority of parishes have never been the alleged clown Mass. It simply gets trotted out as if it were pervasive everywhere. It takes on the urban legend sheen, no one ever bothering to ask who, where, when and how often.
That it never should have occured is beyond question, assuming we can find someone somewhere who actually observed it. But there has been a significant amount of alcoholism for a whole long time within the priesthood, pre and post Vatican 2. It is a sad, terribly destructive problem that impacts not only the priest but also the parish. Snide comments simply ignore its impact. I have a hard time believing that the archbishop at the time was not informed of the issue; perhaps he wasn’t. But when one of my classmates had both legs crushed by the pastor’s car when he “forgot” to set the parking brake, it hardly was the dismissive issue you try to make it.
Why do I bring it up? Because I am tired of the post Vatican 2 traditionalists who constantly imply that life was so much holier and so much more sacrosanct before Vatican 2 occured. The Church had problems then; they were simply different problems. Talk on all you want about how Vatican 2 took and continues to take the Church down; it was the priests ordained before Vatican 2 who made up such a large number of the sexual abusers. If the Church was all so mighty holy and untainted before Vatican 2, explain that sourcing. And that has nothing to do with the spirit of Vatican 2; they were trained and selected before that ever occured.
and one a pope.
