The article seems to find fault with the modern Mass as a result of Vatican II.
I’m not so sure if it is Vatican II, the misinterpretted implementation of Vatican II, or an aging and shrinking number of priests to perform all of their functions.
All of the above?
2) The above facilitated, open the door to: the insertion of purposely ambiguous language in VatII, that would later be interpreted to the benefit of the progressives
3)It was the change to the vernacular mass, which opened up the New Mass to all kinds of ad-libbing, as many masses as there were priests (and the Charismatic masses, Clown masses, Conga line masses, Polka masses). Something which could not be done with the mass had it been done in Latin.
Look, what happened was exactly what the progressivists had planned. They had no intention of just doing the New Mass in Latin with the same churches,high altars, vestments, altar men/boys, that existed for like 500 years. They wanted what you see. Had they done the Novus Ordo in Latin, with the same vestments, altars,churches, altar servers as in the 1950’s NO ONE WOULD HAVE NOTICED! That was not their intention, they wanted what you see today.
In the end, the shortage of priests is simple (it stems from the same cause of the shortage of mass attending men) - What man would want to be a priest (or attend mass) in this TOTALLY effeminatized mass environment? Only feelings oriented effeminatized men.