Pope Paul said the same thing 50 years ago in succumbing to the banal vernacular. And have people understood the Mass more?
Yet a few months ago Pope Francis on the 450yr anniversary praised the Trent documents, part of which anathemized anyone proposing the vernacular only Mass.
First, not all vernacular is banal. Second, Pope Francis is a supporter of the Latin Mass.
“By the celebration of the sacred mysteries according to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite…may [the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter] contribute, in fidelity to the living Tradition of the Church, to a better comprehension and implementation of the Second Vatican Council.”
source
On January 12, 2014, Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem.
source
On October 31, 2013, Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem.
source
During his January, 2015 trip to the Philippines, Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Latin.
source
On December 24, 2013, Pope Francis celebrated the traditional Latin Mass.
source
See also:
Pope Francis Is No Liberal: 24 Examples
I think his most recent comments are merely saying that the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are a good thing, and we shouldn’t undo them. But preserving the Extraordinary Form isn’t undoing the Second Vatican Council, so I think there is good evidence that he supports it.
Why not? If people were better understanding God in the past with the non-vernacular than today with the vernacular, then wouldn’t that mean that the non-vernacular is better?
I don’t think so, I think that would be committing a fallacy known as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” i.e. “after this, therefore because of this.” Catholic Answers explains the fallacy here:
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9009fea2.asp
Here’s a selection: REMEMBER THE OLD JOKE that asks what happens when you submerge a body entirely in water? (Answer: The phone rings.) No one really believes that getting into a bathtub makes the phone ring, of course: It’s just an inconvenient coincidence.
But if someone were to argue such a thing, he would be guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”), which says that because B happened after A, B was caused by A.
Shortly after the United States broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Sensationalistic anti-Catholic writers such as Charles Chiniquy immediately claimed Lincoln was done in by Jesuit agents. (This view is promoted today by Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera.) A was followed by B, so A caused B. Simple, isn’t it?
You will sometimes hear that countries which became Protestant at the time of the Reformation subsequently experienced economic expansion and that Reformation theology was responsible. Since Protestantism brings prosperity, it would be good for all countries to become Protestant.
Even if this were so, should economic prosperity be our measure of theological truth? Should I join the church that tells me “God wants me to be rich” and promises that if I tithe to that church I’ll soon be a millionaire? More importantly, historians increasingly point out that the cause of any one country’s prosperity is an extremely complex matter which can hardly be attributed to the adoption of a creed. In our case, I think the fallacy is applied this way:
The Church was doing good, it allowed the Mass Parts to be said in English (and other languages), and now the Church is doing bad. Clearly, the language is at fault.
But that’s fallacious because it commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
