i agree with what you write about the architecture --with a passion and a clarity thats lovely to read .
as a young person who served mass i was the last in my locality to have been instructed in Latin and what responses to make and when and had to learn the language as to ring the bell and other tasks were dependent on monitoring the Latin and responding -- it was horrific gobbledygook and annoyed me intensely .
i reasoned i was not permitted to understand what was going on and the deliberate use of a language that only one person in the church spoke was an insult to the religion and those who wished to follow it.
this extended to the practice of turning your back on the people --and when Vatican 2 came i experienced such liberation from the drudgery of the Latin .
a day after people wondered why such a daft thing had ever been decided on .
and were we not entitled to know what was being said to us and what was being said on our behalf .
nobody would buy a car from a salesman who turned his back on you and a priest was no different --- the people now looked at the face which was speaking to them in a language they could understand and they felt they had finally got some little respect as they could now assess the sincerity of the person while listening to his words AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THEY HAD THIS ENTITLEMENT .
the mad rush to modernize--- to embrace progress was embraced by all and we went to unpainted concrete sheds which had random broken pieces of coloured glass fused together and the illogical chaotic nature of it appealed to us and liberated us from the classical forms which were now being rejected .
not because they were ugly but were seen as dark and oppressive .
the new buildings were a joy on a summers day and Ireland looked well in the sunlight for a change as no classical church was capable of allowing light /sunshine on the worshippers .
People generally do not read for knowledge nor are curious enough to research .
therefore the subtleties of architecture/politics/medicine/mental health/ morality /ethics/law are never discussed in detail or with any knowledge that would lead to an informed opinion .
the MODERN church architecture was a response by management to rebrand the company and relaunch it with priests with flared trousers long hair and loads and loads of broken coloured glass in the walls roof everywhere and most of all as quick as possible,
as the church felt the earthquake of the young generation who for the first time GAVE THEMSELVES THE PERMISSION TO LIVE AS THEY CHOOSE.
and this permission did not include the catholic church ,
seen as oppressive and dark /foreign language speaking repressive -fanatical /cultish wealthy /powerful /educated /opinionated /entitled elite .
in short everything the hippy generation and the mild flared trousered smiling majority of the 1970 s Abba generation despised .
the concrete sheds and the smiling singing priests who looked at you while the sun traversed the sky and one moment lit your granny in blue but in a few moments entertained all by lighting her in vivid red -- mass was no longer boring and our homes did not allow such light to enter and we somehow felt IMPROVED by being there .
we now have moved on a little and we now expect more from our architects and the church has to and has i think learned that the architecture of the building must now admit light -- not be a frozen hall - you have to hear with clarity what is being said in all locations at LOW volume .
security is now an issue and building maintenance is unaffoardble to the locals or the main church body for almost the lifetime of the building .
how do you project the current requirement of humility in a cathedral -- its not possible .
BFH, while I think you’re right to describe the
feeling of liberation people experienced at the time; however that doesn’t mean the changes themselves were either necessary or healthy for the Faith. What you’re describing is less a simple “translation into English” and more a wholesale redefinition of what the Mass actually
is.
The Novus Ordo is not simply a translation of the traditional Latin mass. It’s an entirely new liturgy.
Firstly, on Latin. It wasn’t there to exclude people, it was there to
unify and protect the Faith. For centuries, whether you were in Ireland, France, Africa, or Asia, the Mass was the same. A Catholic could walk into any church, anywhere in the world and know exactly what was happening. That universality matters. More importantly, Latin is a
dead language, so it doesn’t change. That means the meaning of the prayers can’t drift over time the way vernacular languages do. In a religion built on precise doctrine, that stability is a safeguard, not an insult. If any saint from past centuries turned up today and attended a post Vatican 2 new order (Novus Ordo) rite; they wouldn't know what religion it was and certainly wouldn't think its Catholic. They'd be confused.
And it's worth saying that understanding wasn’t absent, either. People followed the Mass with missals (with the English translation, side by side with the Latin), catechesis, and familiarity. The idea that Catholics for 1,500 years were just sitting in ignorance doesn’t really hold up. My kids could follow the Latin mass at 6 or 7 years of age. It's incredibly simple.
The priest facing the altar, rather than the people, also wasn’t about “turning his back.” He was leading the people in prayer, all facing the same direction, toward God on the cross on Calvary, when the priest faces the other way, he's turning his back on God on the Cross. It is a re-enactment of Calvalry. It was a shared orientation, not a performance. When that changed, the focus subtly shifted: the priest became more like a presenter addressing an audience, rather than a mediator offering sacrifice. The new liturgy and priestly actions suggest that the mass itself is more than likely illicit.
Now, the deeper issue: the post–Vatican II reforms didn’t just “happen.” The new liturgy; the Novus Ordo, was largely shaped by a masonic infiltrator called - Annibale Bugnini, a figure who has long been controversial, including allegations (with considerable evidence) of Masonic associations. What’s not disputed is that he
deliberately brought in Protestant observers during the reform process, and the resulting rite removed or softened many explicitly Catholic elements; especially references to sacrifice, sin, and the priest’s unique role. The Freemason Bugnini and his Protestant advisors formed a new liturgy which can only be described as a 'new religion'.
That’s why many see the new Mass as constructed to be more acceptable to non-Catholics rather than as a faithful organic development of tradition.
Even small details reflect a shift in spirit. The introduction of things like the “sign of peace”, that handshake moment, might seem harmless, but it changes the atmosphere from something sacred and vertical to something social and horizontal. It mimics the masonic 'handshake'. Someone was amusing themselves adding that to the liturgy.
As for whether Second Vatican Council was a success: that depends on what you think its goal was. If it was meant to usher in a “new springtime for the church,” the results speak for themselves, mass attendance collapsed, vocations declined, belief in core doctrines weakened. Ireland is a prime example of that trajectory.
But if the aim; intentionally or otherwise, was to
dilute, modernise, and ultimately weaken the traditional Faith, then yes, you could argue it succeeded remarkably well.
The Church prior to Vatican 2 was soaring with all-time high mass attendances and conversions. This nosedived after Vatican 2. Pretty much immediately. Vatican 2 was a monumental failure.
So the 1960's “hippy moment” wasn’t just about making things easier to understand. It was about changing the entire orientation of Catholic life, from something sacred, stable, and transcendent into something adaptable, accessible, and, ultimately, far less anchored.
It has been a monumental failure.
