The truth of the matter is that Vatican II is only now beginning to take effect, just as the Council of Trent took several genarations to take full effect.
For the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, Latin is the official language. The Order of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI, what others have "nicknamed" the Novus Ordo (not it's official title), can always be said in Latin. In fact, Latin is the normative language. Priests need permission from their Bishops to say this Mass in the venacular language (for America, English), not the other way around. It was never the intention of Vatican II to banish Latin, quite the opposite.
Of course, practically speaking, with a universal indult here in America as well as other countries for the venacular language, the vast majority of Masses are said in the venacular. Additionally, despite the fact that Priests of the Latin Rite are supposed to know Latin, many do not. This excaberates the problem. For English speakers this fact has been especially horrendous due to the incompetent, agenda driven translations that have been used up to this point. This fact is in the process of changing. It will take time.
The indult Mass being talked about here concerns the "Tridentine" Mass as of (I believe) 1962. The Pope allowed an indult for this version of the Mass to be said in the 1980's with the desire that it be widely available for those who wished to worship liturgically with it. Similar to the "Novus Ordo", it has never offically been translated into any venacular so it is obviously said in Latin.
An indult means permission, for at least a certain time (if not more), to lawfully do something not "normative" in the Church. For the Tridentine Mass, it requires among other things, that the individuals participating fully accept the Vatican II Council. It also requires permission from the local Ordinary. That had been the sticking point in Phoenix up til now. It indeed is the sticking point for many Dioceses in this country, as fellow Freepers can and do testify. I can only urge them to patience. Schism is never a valid answer.
Regarding which way the Priest faces, I always understood that the universal rubrics for the "Novus Ordo" actually assumed the ad orientum position of the Priest for the Eucharistic Prayer. The Bishops in America may have requested and gained adapted rubrics for our country favoring the ad populum direction. I'm not clear on that. In any event, either direction is valid. And this, for both Masses. Consider St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and the Tridentine Mass being said there. Actually, the Pope could do both ad orientum and ad populum at one and the same time!
A generation of shoddy catechesis and poorly formed Priests, engineered by a cabal of dissidents trying to mastermind a mid-level takeover of the Church under guise of "post counciliar reform" has caused tremendous harm. The take-over has cracked and is sliding backwards as a new generation comes up to clean up the mess. The 2,000 years of Church history has seen this story played out before.
I'd like to see some documentation on this claim. In fact, Pope Paul VI himself named the New Mass and called it the "Novus Ordo" when he introduced it. This is not a nickname, nor was it applied by others.
In fact, Latin is the normative language. Priests need permission from their Bishops to say this Mass in the venacular language (for America, English), not the other way around.
Try telling that to the priests who have been refused permission to say the New Mass in Latin. Start with the priest in Dallas just within the past few months. The chancery there made some very critical comments about him being a reactionary, the priest was transferred before his term was up, and the chancery official stated that official permission from the bishop was required to say the New Mass in Latin.
It was never the intention of Vatican II to banish Latin, quite the opposite.
If that was the case, then why did the constitution on the sacred liturgy give permission to the bishops' conferences to determine the extent of vernacular usage? As we have seen for the past 40 years, there was nothing preventing those bishops from deciding that vernacular usage would be 100%. And that has been the case, as a direct result of the implementation of Vatican II.
Additionally, despite the fact that Priests of the Latin Rite are supposed to know Latin, many do not. This excaberates the problem.
This is true, in fact quite understated. We are consecrating so-called priests who don't know a word of Latin. I was speaking with my parish priest (who was generally quite conservative) in Massachussetts when I mentioned "As it says in Casti Connubii," and he replied, "Sorry, I don't know any Latin." Not only was I shocked beyond words to discover that he doesn't know any Latin, but "Casti Connubii" is not really even Latin per se, just the title of a document. So besides not knowing any Latin, he clearly has never read any of the major encyclicals either.
Thank you for succinctly summing up the past 40 years into an excellent expose! It should be copied, saved, and posted to all other threads on this topic ;-D
Tell that to Fr. Weinberger.