I don’t have a pollyanna attitude.
I have a gospel attitude of thanksgiving and hope.
I simply mentioned that it is objectively wrong and harmful to use the labels “pre-Vatican-II” to mean “good” and “post-Vatican-II” to mean “bad”.
Your reaction was to go spew pessimistic rants about how terrible things are.
My counter-reaction was to note that we should be grateful and hopeful because our current pope is addressing these very issues quite clearly and forcefully.
Your reaction is that I am a clueless pollyanna.
Well, netmilsmom, whatever type of Mass you have at your parish, the good affect it has on you remains hidden. I suggest that now is the time to choose happiness.
>>Well, netmilsmom, whatever type of Mass you have at your parish, the good affect it has on you remains hidden. I suggest that now is the time to choose happiness.<<
I have. And your entire preface of Pre-VII vs. VII masses comes from this post #12.
“At my parish here in the Detroit area, we have not only a Pre-Vatican II Holy Mass (TLM) but also EVERY one of our masses are Historically correct VII masses, like you see on EWTN. No guitars, no talking in the main before or after, and proper dress. Although we don’t have an Altar rail, we have kneelers and receive kneeling by intiction on the tongue. I’ve even seen our priests hold a host up until a person opens his mouth.”
which was singing the praises of an Historically Correct VII (NO) mass. So I’m not sure where you get the “pre-Vatican-II” to mean “good” and “post-Vatican-II” to mean “bad”, but it wasn’t from me.