After Vatican 2 a new Mass was imposed on Catholics by Rome. After 50 years it might be time to see whether this change was an improvement.
On the introduction of the new Mass, Latin disappeared. Almost instantly. The vernacular became almost universal.
But Pope Paul told us that there was really no change.
Paul VI General Audience: The Mass is the Same
Yet the Council had insisted on retaining Latin.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 36: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”(§ 1).
We heard the claim that the vernacular was needed so people could follow the Mass. And there was something in this claim, since in the traditional Mass almost all the actions rested with the priest and altar-boys.
However, all of a sudden Catholics travelling abroad were shut off. Masses in Hong Kong were now in Cantonese. Masses in Korea were in Korean. In the Philippines they might be in Tagalog, Visayan, Pampango, Ilocano, Pangasinan or a host of other languages.
So for those who travel, the language change has been a disaster.
2 Say the Black
Priests soon learned that they could insert their own words in the Mass. Some of these changed the sense of the texts. Others dropped in Protestant prayers in the Memorial Acclamation, and demonstrated how to improve on the Penitential Rite. The words 'Agnus Dei' might now be translated as 'living vine', 'word made flesh', or 'prince of peace'. Even the Orate Fratres and the Offertory suffered occasional revision.
What is the Effect of the Priest Changing the Words of the Mass? Is There Anything We Can Do? - Adoremus Bulletin
Changing the words was unheard-of when the Mass was in Latin. In the vernacular, it allows the priest to grandstand, to show his creativity. The Mass becomes about the priest, and God is relegated to the background.
3 Changes in Meaning and Emphasis
There have been arguments that the Novus Ordo loses much of the teaching wealth of the traditional Mass, and suffers from inferior wording.
The Novus Ordo (despite EPII) is an orthodox and valid Mass: but the way it was introduced was part of the hermeneutic of rupture | Catholic Herald
4 Lack of reverence
The collapse in Mass attendance speaks for itself. We are now down to single figures. Since Catholics who deliberately miss even one single Sunday Mass commit a mortal sin, if unrepentant they end up in Hell forever. So we have perhaps a huge majority of Catholics headed for damnation.
Chatting in Mass was (and is) rare under the traditional Mass. Now the conversation continues even after the consecration.
5 Lack of foresight
We have innovations like the sign of peace, when people turn to the person next to them and offer a sign of peace. How could those who thought up this innovation not contemplate in advance the awful display of irreverence? People wandering about the church, shaking hands and chatting. And priests leaving the altar to get around and have a happy moment with everyone in the church. What about the priests who insist that everyone must hug their neighbours?
Given that the sign of peace comes after the consecration, and Christ's Body and Blood are just a few metres away during this blasphemous exercise, examples like this make some Catholics start to doubt that the writers who dreamed up this nonsense were incompetent, and instead suspect that they were working on behalf of the forces of darkness.
6 Do the red
Abuses did not creep into the Mass. They erupted. The most blatant is the misuse of extraordinary ministers. Here is part of Inaestimabile Donum (Redemptionis Sacramentum says much the same):
10. The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.
Extraordinary ministers are provided only in cases of emergency. Those priests who have rosters in advance are claiming that they can predict emergencies. This abuse never happened under the old Mass.
These 'ministers' carry on after Communion with the ablutions while the priest sits down. This may not have been intended, but it surely could have been predicted.
Extraordinary ministers were not the only problem. Priests found ways to mark their ownership of the Mass. Here is Redemptionis Sacramentum 55:
[55.] In some places there has existed an abuse by which the Priest breaks the host at the time of the consecration in the Holy Mass. This abuse is contrary to the tradition of the Church. It is reprobated and is to be corrected with haste.
Once upon a time people were restrained and composed in movement. Today they stroll around the church, even at the altar. Men wear stubby shorts and T-shirts. Women wear pedal-pushers and sleeveless tops.
What happened to Sunday Best, the standard dress under the traditional Latin Mass?
A particular problem arises when women wear short shorts or skirts, and expose shoulders and midriffs. This was unthinkable before the Novus Ordo.
But the real problem is that priests never tell anyone how to behave or dress in church, and this leads us to suspect that bishops also fail to raise the subject. This behaviour cannot go unnoticed by God, and will certainly lead to untold misery in Purgatory, if the offenders are fortunate enough to repent. It could be worse.
Can we blame all these evils on the Novus Ordo? Or are other factors involved, such as the lack of teaching on the part of bishops and priests?
I believe that the answer is fairly straightforward. None of these evils existed before. Many of them are due to disobedience, yet it can be argued that the Novus Ordo provides fertile ground for those who choose to grandstand and ignore the rubrics. In some cases errors could have been foreseen but weren't.
Both the traditional Mass of 1962 are Latin Masses. Both are permitted in the vernacular. But only the Novus Ordo has these evils on display.
There are two other evils which have arisen following the introduction of the Novus Ordo: Communion in the hand, and Communion under both kinds. Both were introduced by way of disobedience (that is, they arose as the result of sacrilege), and both have caused enormous harm to souls.
The Holy Spirit does not introduce changes in the Church by way of sin, and it would be blasphemous to claim that somehow God is responsible for these changes.
Given the enormity of the offences to God which emanated from the introduction of the Novus Ordo, it would seem time to return to the traditional Latin Mass of 1962.