Another great lie being bandied about is how the bishops are obedient to Rome and so accommodating
to those who desire to retain the Latin Traditions they were raised on as the Holy Father asked for in his motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei" in 1998. The following will clarify this falsehood.
Paragraph 12 of GIRM reads:
"Convened in order to adapt the Church to the contemporary requirements of its apostolic task, the Second Vatican Council examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the pedagogic and pastoral character of the liturgy. Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that 'the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people' and gave permission for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mysteries being celebrated."
Comment and Analysis:
"Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin"? This is worse than fantasy land. The person who wrote this must be insane. Has to be an insane person. No Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin? There are bishops who absolutely forbid the Traditional Latin Mass despite the exhortation of both Pope John Paul II and Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, O.S.B., the first President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei for there to be a wide and generous application of the Holy Father's "Ecclesia Dei" motu proprio. There are bishops who even forbid the celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin. And Lafayette, Indiana, Bishop William Higi forbids the use of any Latin in any Mass celebrated in his diocese, save for the Ave Maria and a few other hymns. Indeed, those who petition some diocesan bishops for the Traditional Latin Mass and/or for a Latin Novus Ordo Mass are dismissed as reactionaries, veritable preconciliar dinosaurs unworthy of any serious consideration.
Also, we know only too well the success that the use of the vernacular has accomplished in helping the people to understand the Mass better, don't we? Most Catholics today have been taught to believe that the Mass is a community meal, not a sacrifice. Young children preparing for First Holy Communion are catechized to view the Eucharistic as a symbolic representation of our Lord's Body and Blood, not His Real Presence.
The very architecture of new churches (and of wreckovated churches) communicates all of this. Altars have been replaced by tables. Tabernacles have been taken out and shunted off to side rooms. Reverence of behavior in church has been replaced by the irreverent and the profane, including endless talking and the wearing of inappropriate and immodest attire. But, after all, why not "dress down" for "church" if one believes he is attending a community meal than participating in the unbloody representation of Calvary? Oh, yes, the faithful certainly have learned from the new Mass. What they have learned, however, has little actual connection with genuine Catholicism. That is why so many people are distracted and bored during Mass now. That is why they want the Mass to "entertain" them. The new Mass has bred an epidemic of ignorance about the Faith which is without precedence in the history of the Church.
Finally, the use of the vernacular has given rise to various national and international commissions to translate the Latin into the vernacular.
Many of these commissions, such as the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) are composed of liturgists who have used language as an ideological tool to undermine the Holy Faith. ICEL's longtime secretary, John Page, would not respond to me directly in 1993 when I asked him if members of his commission, who were pushing for "gender inclusive" translations of what was then called the Sacramentary, were dissenters on matters of the Faith (contraception, abortion, the nonadmissability of women to holy orders). Living languages change and can be manipulated by those seeking to create a synthetic faith to match a synthetic liturgy.
Paragraph 13 of GIRM reiterates the disproven point that the Mass is now more understandable than it was in the past. It also lauded the Second Vatican Council for encouraging the faithful to receive Holy Communion in Mass, stating this to be a fulfillment of the desires of the Council of Trent that "the faithful present at each Mass should communicate not only by spiritual desire but also by sacramental communion." But Vatican II was not the impetus for this. Pope Saint Pius X was the one who encouraged the faithful to receive Holy Communion when attending Mass if they were in states of grace. He did so to counter some of the lingering aspects of Jansenism in the Church. What the new Mass has done is to usher in a period of sacrilegious communions, principally by including prayer texts which do not stress the need for personal penance and an examination of conscience, something which abounds in the Traditional Latin Mass.
Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
Tomorrow: Part Eight: "Hand" Me down?
For past columns in The DAILY CATHOLIC by Dr. Droleskey, see Archives