In my experience the "Liberal" clergy (priests and seminarians) who bemoan the clericalism of the days before the council (old and young) are far more clericalist than the "Traditionalist" ones.

I've also found this to be true.

Multas gratias ago to Fr. Krisman for the explanation of praxis curiae romanae. Sperandum est that the magnum opus of Msgrs. Ward et Ferrer, reformatio reformationis Novi Ordinis, shall continue ad multos annos under the current administation Papae Francisci.

Gavin,

Since I'm not taking prisoners and not at war, I'm not sure why the Geneva Conventions matter, but I'm not sure I take your meaning in any event.

The following are true statements:

1) In the 1950s (as the most recent measure before the changes began, not as some ideal age in the past) 3 in 4 Catholics in this country attended Mass.

2) As reported in many analyses, something like 25 percent of those who call themselves Catholic self-identify as attending Mass weekly in our own era.

I didn't draw the conclusion that the vernacular caused the present situation, only that if the situation is so much better now that Mass is in the vernacular I have trouble doing the math, getting me from 75% attendance is good to 25% attendance is better than it would have been without the vernacular.

I do think, for what it's worth, that the collapse in the practice can be linked to the vernacular, but I don't think it's the only cause, nor was I arguing the point in my previous post, nor here.

Well, I don't know too many "Traditionalist" ones (whom I would define as those who either offer the EF only or prefer the EF to the OF), but definitely very very conservative ones, and I have to say the tendency is equal opportunity across the spectrum, and I am not aware of any special immunity that Traditionalist priests would possess in this regard. The thing is, in communities that have a strong intentionally gathered character (again, across the spectrum), people tend not to see the clericalism of the clerics they are attracted to being led by. And I've certainly witnessed (and myself been among) progressive sheep remonstrate strongly with progressive clerics for clericalism (these tend to be what might be called process progressives, who are wary of "doing Vatican III in a Vatican I way" as someone once aptly put it). So, let's tone down unhelpful mutual assumptions....

Generalizations are just that. They can't possibly be true in every case, nor are they claimed to be. But some generalizations tend to resonate with many people, and it seems that they are GENERALLY TRUE more often.

Some so-called "conservative" priests are quite clerical and some are not. But I've found the so-called "liberal" ones to be as or more clerical - this despite their persistent claim that they are less so.

I've witnessed examples too countless to retell, and in many cases I don't want to get too particular with details. But I will give a couple of examples in history from NPM conventions.

When I went to my first convention years ago, I happened upon two priests with whom I ended up spending some time during the convention. They were what most would describe as very liberal in all matters. As we chatted about music and liturgy and other things, I was struck (even then) by how many authoritarian pronouncements they made: "Some people in my parish want some Latin in the mass, even if only during Lent, but on that I will NOT budge! That has NO PLACE in the mass today!" ....... "When I took over, the community was doing the offertory procession in this manner ... on my first Sunday there, I said that I wanted it THIS way and that is how it would be, I don't want to hear any complaints" ......... "Our community had a tradition of only the priest washing people's feet, like it said in the Missal, and some wanted to keep it that way. But that's too bad, I'm NOT celebrating Holy Thursday that way because I don't believe in that!" ......... and on and on it went.

Of course that's an example from one point in time, of two particular people. But as generalizations go, I've found it to be true. And it is so much more noticeable perhaps because those who consider themselves "progressives" bemoan clericalism so much more and castigate what they see as instances of it.

One thing that seems to be true across the board of clergy (and probably indeed of everyone): Things that THEY personally feel strongly about they will not budge on, even in the face of almost militant opposition, whereas in other cases it's all about keeping the people's complaining to a minimum.

I have to say the tendency is equal opportunity across the spectrum, and I am not aware of any special immunity that Traditionalist priests would possess in this regard.

Yup. To some trad priests, the collar is a Ph.D. in everything, including management of choirs (all phases) and organists. One, I learned later, is an embarrassment to his Order; the other is .......ahhh......never mind.

To clarify: "Liberal" ... well, you know.//"Traditionalist" (I probably should have said "Traditional") - anyone from the Ratzinger/RotR crowd to FSSP/ICKP; i.e. those with a kindly regard for Tradition.

Jeffrey,

I explicitly refused that argument, so I don't think it can be reason to invoke the Geneva Convention.

Cheers,

Chris