Not a few Catholics think this form of the Mass is obsolete and against what Vatican II envisioned for the Church. They think the picture below this one is what Vatican II really wanted for the Mass. YIKES!
This man thinks he's a priest and he's celebrating "Mass" in Belgium. In his "catholic" church, anyone can celebrate the "Mass." Aren't they cool and neato?
On the heals of the article below this post, where Cardinal Biffi decries the "spirit" of Vatican II that took a firm hold on many in the Church following the Second Vatican Council, the New York Times has a report on "churches" springing up in Belgium where "Mass" is "celebrated" by "laity" who are not "ordained" priests. You can read the article here in the New York Times.
When I was in the seminary between 1976 and 1980, the theology that has produced the "churches" in this New York Times story was seen as the wave of the future for the entire Catholic Church. Anyone could be selected to celebrate "Mass." It didn't have to be an ordained priest because we're all "priests" by virtue of our baptism which is the end all and be all of all sacraments. Obviously, this aberrant "spirit" of Vatican II theology has become important for a small minority of aging "hippies" who embraced the "spirit" of Vatican II and can't believe that the entire Church, meaning also that part which is the hierarchy hasn't come around to their gnostic tendencies and beliefs.
Let me conclude by printing once again what Cardinal Biffi writes about "stuff" like this:
With such a theological and historical methodology – never expressed in such a clear fashion, but no less relentless for this reason – it is easy to imagine the results: what is adopted and exalted in an almost obsessive manner is not the Council that in fact was celebrated, but (so to speak) a "virtual Council"; a Council that has a place not in the history of the Church, but in the history of ecclesiastical imagination. Anyone who dares to dissent, however timidly, is branded with the infamous mark of "preconciliar," when he is not in fact numbered among the traditionalist rebels, or the despised fundamentalists.
And because the "counterfeit distillates" of the Council include the principle that by now there is no error that can be condemned in Catholicism, except for sinning against the primary duty of understanding and dialogue, it becomes difficult today for theologians and pastors to have the courage to denounce vigorously and tenaciously the toxins that are progressively poisoning the innocent people of God.