The liturgical reform movement has actually been underway for quite some time, and there really (IMHO) was a need for a limited sort of reform, consisting mostly of making the priests actually celebrate the mass properly (instead of doing the 12 minute low mass "celebrated" in a buzzing whisper with the altar boys bobbing so fast they looked like ducks). Certainly, there were other things that could have been cleaned up, too, and I didn't object to things like the "dialogue mass," the people saying aloud the prayers normally said in response by the altar boys and those parts that had originally been meant for the entire congregation to say. And I also liked the priest's prayers being said audibly and intelligibly, because they are very beautiful and meaningful liturgical prayers.
But somehow the whole thing just escaped. There's a good article by Fr. Brian Harrison in this month's Latin Mass Magazine, discussing this very fact. Most bishops surveyed before the council either were not interested in liturgical changes, or were in favor of very limited ones (such as the above, which were stylistic and not changes to the essential liturgy). A very tiny percentage was in favor of radical changes - yet somehow, he points out, only three years later, this tiny group of "liturgical leftists" somehow got through a program for sweeping changes that were much more dramatic than anybody had expected. Once these changes were obediently accepted, they were followed a couple of years later by another round of changes (including the removal of altar rails, Communion in the hand, the Mass facing the people, etc.) undreamed of by even the earlier group of liturgical leftists.
I don't think Ratzinger was a contributor to this last phase, certainly, and obviously many people, no doubt including Ratzinger, who were involved in the first part of the "reforms" had any idea of the extent to which such "reforms" would be carried only a few years later.
Thankfully, for the most part, the TLM is celebrated today in an unhurried, participatory, and meaningful way. The 12 minute Low Mass is a relic of history. Much still has to be done in the way of getting more vocal participationl, especially at High Mass. Where priests take a keen interest in inspiring their congregants with liturgical richness, many many good things come about. Mater Ecclesiae in NJ is a case in point as to the workings of a devoted, liturgically minded pastor, and is an example of how the TLM was always and must continue to be celebrated and incorporated in the lives of the faithful. This was and is true liturgical reform as opposed to liturgical revision/reinvention.
I mentioned on another thread that I recall reading (30 years ago maybe?) that the leftists had their agenda all planned out and started pushing it through while those bishops without an agenda "were still finding their seats and brushing up their Latin."
BTW, where did people find those "12-minute" Masses? I was in high school when the changes started coming in, but went to a lot of pre-VII daily Masses in jr high; they usually lasted at least half an hour; a 25-minute Mass was considered speedy!
He makes a subtle, and easily missed, point in the article that this "tiny percentage" (all from northern European countries, notably Germany) showed up organised, and with a well developed agenda. It is, therefore, unsurprising that they prevailed. I suspect that they "Delphi'd" the Council.
A splendid image!
Your take comports with mine.
R. has some exceptionally good stuff on the topic of Sacred Music which places him FIRMLY in the Traditionalist camp on the liturgy/worship question.
Not surprising--his brother was Kappelmeister at the Cathedral of Cologne.