Having read the Catechism of trent and the declarations of the council of Trent, I am certain nothing could come out of Trent as absurd as the link I posted.
But the "spirit of Trent"-- would that not be found in every pre-1960 parish in the USA? And I have certainly seen plenty of them around here that are every bit the drab listlessness that leads to the desperation of a Robert Lentz. And I've seen enough books of viciously fond humor concerning those Bad Old Days.
In here is the thought that Vat. II represented some sort of discontinuity. I don't think it did-- not in people's thinking. There was always a lot of Catholic wackiness out there, only it expressed itself in different outlets. And there was always a lot of unhappiness.
If there was any discontinuity, it was that the church finally confessed to having the unhappiness. BUT
in most parishes the same thing kept on going, regardless of any other changes. For instance, consider St. Louis Clarksville
, about 15 minutes from my house. This started out life as a rural parish, but by the time I was born they were on their second church building and were mostly a suburban parish, serving all the developments and fragments of development about. They had one of the two principal parochial schools in the immediate area (Pallotti in Laurel was the other). At the time, they had a classic Catholic-American interpretation of a French Gothic church, whcih still stands on the grounds.
But then they built the huge mass factory you see in the photo on their website (it's about four times the size of the old church). It is of course built to the specs of the "spirit of Vat. II", but that's not why the built it. They built it simply for more capacity. The same priests simply had to pack more people in per service in order to deal with the crowds.
The point is that the liturgy was not the point in the old days either. What was the point was simply seeing that everyone got their sacramental obligations over with. For everything else, people were on their own, and thus against Robert Lentz there was Bayside NY.
I think what the Vat. II reformers wanted was something like the 1979's Prayer A, done much like conservative Anglicans do it-- except Catholic. There's a lot of reasons they didn't get this, but a big reason was, ironically, conservatism. People didn't want to change the way they went to mass, and priests didn't want to approach doing it with a different attitude. It was OK for them to change every external detail, but to really take it seriously-- that was too threatening and also too Anglican.
Which is hardly to say that the Anglicans didn't get swept up in the loopiness-- they did, more so in many ways. Being loopy is an Anglican tradition too, after all.
"Spirt of Trent"....hahaha...oh that is funny! I think it is difficult not to laugh at what is absolutely absurd and rediculous in what one's opposition says and does.
But there is a difference between laughing at it when it passes by, and going in search of it in order to ridicule it. Day referred to the RC Church as "the tabloid church"; that is something that hasn't ever changed. Traditional RCs ridiculing modernists of whatever denomination or sect are throwing stones from the greenhouse doorway. This is tantamount to thanking God that you are not like that modernist over there. You are saying that you aren't like them; I'm suggesting that you may be more like them than you think.