Will Catholics Ever Return to Mass?

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/will-catholics-ever-return-to-mass?mc_cid=b7aa2089bf&mc_eid=72ec12853e

Not to the mess of Paul VI

The pedophile communists were closing down the Churches long before communist created covid.  So many Churches and Christians attacked with permission of pervert pope. 

I know of three cases now, where parents and close by friends have gathered (“illegally”) to baptize their own babies, and one instance of a wedding minus a priest.  The couple give the Sacrament to one another before two witnesses.  

I’m sad when I think of all the children who will grow up without any faith and even if having home religion, will not be able to make their first communion or get confirmed.  

If I had a child (or any other loved one) who needed to be baptized, and could not get a priest for whatever reason, I'd do it and not give it a moment's hesitation.  Take a video, execute a notarized statement, then, when things return to normalcy, submit this as evidence of valid baptism.

As far as weddings, yes, I know canon law allows for it, but still, nobody ever has to get sacramentally married at any specific time.  (If so, please someone explain when and why.)   The affianced couple could always just consider that it is the Divine Will for them not to be able to receive the sacrament at this time, and remain chaste and affianced.   People who desire a spouse, and cannot find one, go many years, possibly even a lifetime, without being able to get married.  What makes affianced couples so special, then, that they have to get married "right here, right now"?  (This is assuming no impediments and being otherwise free to marry.)  The only thing I can think of, is if a couple had to get married to ensure some civil or temporal goods, such as insurance, next-of-kin rights, taxation, inheritance, or in the face of an imminent military deployment, but even then, you would need a civil magistrate or official of some sort.  In some states, even a notary public can do that.  (Note well that I am not asserting this would be a valid sacramental marriage, nor would it confer any marital rights.  This should be clear, but if not, it's worth bringing up.)

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but matrimony isn't.

If I had a child (or any other loved one) who needed to be baptized, and could not get a priest for whatever reason, I'd do it and not give it a moment's hesitation.  Take a video, execute a notarized statement, then, when things return to normalcy, submit this as evidence of valid baptism.

As far as weddings, yes, I know canon law allows for it, but still, nobody ever has to get sacramentally married at any specific time.  (If so, please someone explain when and why.)   The affianced couple could always just consider that it is the Divine Will for them not to be able to receive the sacrament at this time, and remain chaste and affianced.   People who desire a spouse, and cannot find one, go many years, possibly even a lifetime, without being able to get married.  What makes affianced couples so special, then, that they have to get married "right here, right now"?  (This is assuming no impediments and being otherwise free to marry.)  The only thing I can think of, is if a couple had to get married to ensure some civil or temporal goods, such as insurance, next-of-kin rights, taxation, inheritance, or in the face of an imminent military deployment, but even then, you would need a civil magistrate or official of some sort.  In some states, even a notary public can do that.  (Note well that I am not asserting this would be a valid sacramental marriage, nor would it confer any marital rights.  This should be clear, but if not, it's worth bringing up.)

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but matrimony isn't.

I wonder about those Catholics in Japan who were without priests/sacraments for 100's of years.  ?

I wonder about those Catholics in Japan who were without priests/sacraments for 100's of years.  ?

Look at what 100s of years without priests/sacraments did to Japan, they've been worshiping Buddha ever since - no? I don't know, I am asking because it seems like everyone thinks they've kept the faith after 100s of years without priests/sacraments.

I believe (could be wrong) couples may marry without a priest if none can be had for over two months, to prevent concupisence, or if extenuating conditions exist, exactly like financial, legal, care of children, basic needs like food, clothing, shelter.  In the case I heard about, the couple had purchased a house after being engaged for three years.  They had both not signed a lease for the next calendar year, in the belief that they had a priest.  At the last week, their county was locked down, making it impossible for the priest to come, they both had to be out of their rentals, and to complicate even more, the man has full custody of his special needs son with a woman to whom he was never married from his pre-conversion days.  These were older people, in their late 40s, who had nowhere to go, iow, the man and son, at least, would be homeless.  Rather than risking moving in together they did their own marriage.  

Marriage is essential for some. St. Paul teaches better to marry then to burn. Some will burn without marriage because of concupiscence.
The Japanese had marriage without priests during those years. They had valid matrimony and valid baptism. And they had the rosary.
There are many faithful Catholics in Japan. Japan never became a Catholic Country. Catholics were always a small minority. There is tradition there and even a Japanese priest in the SSPX.