Replies

“Yes, I think so as well, but the description you quoted applies to any reformer”

I disagree. Some reformers are on the side of error, others on the side of truth. Those on the side of truth are entirely different personalities.

“it is not specific to the Vatican II core teachings, such as: elevated role of laity”

That was not a good thing.

“expansive view on the Church, reaching out to diverse “denominations”

Perhaps not a bad thing, in and of itself, but the odds against abuse were zero.

“conciliatory tone especially toward the Jews”

I have nothing against the Jews. The mob that howled for Jesus’s blood was a self-selected fraction of the population, much like the “occupy” filthbags.

I had foster parents who were Southern Baptists. They were wonderful people, and I can’t imagine that they are not in Heaven.

Conciliatory is OK. Surrendering important articles of faith is not.

“simplified liturgy in vernacular”

That I oppose strongly, with very few exceptions, and those strictly limited.

Those who translated the Mass into English were theological leftists; they abused the authority of their position to mistranslate texts, changing the meaning to suit themselves. This will happen every time that sort of person—so well described by Saint Pius X—gets the slightest chance. VatII gave them that opening, and it was obvious that it would. No other outcome could have been expected.

“I agree, but the handshaking and handholding are American innovations; it is not fair to blame Vat II for everything you and I dislike in modern liturgy, even if the impetus was given by Vat II.”

VatII gave the theological leftists the opening they needed; the popes had to have known it would. It should never, never, never have been convened.

“In fact, these are worse offenses: priest facing the people from across the portable altar, especially when Jesus is hanging on the cross behind him”

That is a grievous offence, certainly, but I’m not sure it’s worse than the handshaking and handholding.

“Drums, hand-clapping, silly sentimental songs; or, conversely, virtuoso performances that draw attention to the musician”

IMO, the priest or bishop who allows this commits a mortal sin.

“or, conversely, virtuoso performances that draw attention to the musician”

Mass is not a performance, certainly, but there is in my view room for inspiring music, so long as it turns the heart to the things of God. One of these things is beauty.

“No Rosary time before the Mass; no St. Michael prayer”

Muy malo.

“Applause at the end, when people should be praying silently.”

Applause is never—NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER—appropriate in Church.

“Evangelism was strengthened: the lay apostolates flourished after Vatican II.”

I don’t know much about lay apostolates, or what they have accomplished. I suspect, though, that if it were significant, I would have heard more.

“Also, I think there was a need for an entry-level rite in vernacular.”

Perhaps, for children and Catechumins. And, of course, it’s good to give the translation alongside the Latin.

Perhaps reading along with the Latin would have been enough for your wife.

In any case, men must never be trusted to produce an accurate translation. The Latin must be preserved, and enough Latin scholarship to catch scoundrels pushing bad translations.

The new Mass is much weaker than the Tridentine—in Latin. The scoundrels who translated it into English made it even worse. If the new Mass and English are used at all, it should be—as you said—an entry-level rite.

Since I returned to the States in 2006, I have not heard a single homily that was aimed at listeners with an IQ above 70. Any of those could have been delivered in Latin with no loss to anyone. Good homilies, I have to admit, should be delivered in the vernacular to maximize their impact.

We haven’t mentioned perhaps the worst abuse of all: altar girls. It was seen as a step toward “female priests,” which of course, cannot exist no matter what any mortal says. It also contributed to the great decline in vocations.