The following is an excerpt from Bryan Houghton's book Mitre and Crook dealing with this subject. This is an excellent book that I would recommend to every Catholic wishing to understand the revolution that took place in the church in the 1960's and 70's (It is out of print but fairly easy to come by).
"On June 14th, 1971, the Congregation for Worship issued a Notification granting to Episcopal Conferences the right to impose the exclusive use of the vernacular in the New Ordo, once the translations had been approved. It thus became illicit to celebrate the New Ordo in Latin. (. . .) It also repeated the provision in the instruction of October 20th, 1969 that the Old Mass could only be said by aged priests sine populo.
Be it noted that a Notification is a purely administrative document and has no legislative authority whatsoever. Moreover, this particular one was itself undated and unsigned. It is therefore worth less than the paper on which it was printed. The bishops, from Rome to Stamford, remained mute.
Of course, the inevitable result of this particular piece of administrative folly was to throw all Latinists into the arms of the Tridentiners. There was no alternative if the New Ordo was illicit in Latin. It became imperative to divide the opposition, especially as Archbishop Lefebvre had cropped up in the meantime. The laity had thus found a bishop with the promise of future priests. Hence the Notification of October 28th, 1974. This document reverses the previous ruling: the New Ordo may now be said in Latin or vernacular with equality off esteem."
This bit of history should be kept in mind by those who attend the NO in Latin. They should know that it was never Rome's intent to preserve the Latin language in the liturgy. This should be obvious when one considers the nature of the New Mass. Why would you say the NO in a language incomprehensible to the people? After all the NO is all about the people. It makes sense to say the Traditional Mass in Latin as it is addressed to God, but the NO is centered aroung the people, and thus should be said in the vernacular. Fr. Houghton, in his book makes it clear that he thinks the NO in Latin is the worst of all choices.
It is impossible to deny the subtle -- or perhaps not so subtle -- reorientation (indeed the word is appropriate!) of the Church as exemplified by this reorientation of the Mass. Anyone familiar with JPII's intellectual history (extensive writings on humanism, etc.) will understand why he feels a "mystical" attraction to Vatican II. And why he has done as little as possible -- just enough to contain any open revolt -- to maintain the Traditional Mass.
We are talking about a new faith here, when taking all of this to its logical conclusion -- a move away from God and toward Man. I cannot speak for the King of Kings, but somehow I don't think this is what he had in mind for us. I think the decayed fruits of Vatican II are evidence enough of this displeasure.
Sorry to disappoint you my dearly beloved separated brethren, but this book is all horse manure. It never "became illicit" to celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin and the "provision for aged priests" never existed.
To: ultima ratio
...On June 14th, 1971, the Congregation for Worship issued a Notification granting to Episcopal Conferences the right to impose the exclusive use of the vernacular in the New Ordo, once the translations had been approved. It thus became illicit to celebrate the New Ordo in Latin. (. . .) It also repeated the provision in the instruction of October 20th, 1969 that the Old Mass could only be said by aged priests sine populo...
302 posted on 12/02/2002 2:14 PM PST by Bellarmine
Thank you very much for this very interesting post. It, of course, makes perfect sense...
304 posted on 12/02/2002 4:21 PM PST by Zviadist
Don't let 'em fool ya or confuse ya.