I cannot agree with this statement concerning the Order of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
Vatican II, and the revised Mass for the Latin Rite resulting from it's documents did not create or intend to implement a new theology.
While dissident theologians, liturgists, et al, have taken advantage of societal conditions in the Church and introduced many illicit novelties to the Mass during the past 40 years to push their new theology, this is not what Vatican II intended. It certainly is not a "core" value of what the Holy Spirit intends. It goes without saying that many, many Bishops failed in their shepherding by allowing this to happen. It is the current reality in the Church by and large now and will have to be corrected. There are good signs that correction is in process and will occur. Bear in mind that the Council of Trent took several generations to be implemented properly.
I have no problem with the "Tridentine" Mass either - provided it is celebrated legitimately under proper authorization of the local Ordinary. I attended just such a Mass today!
To expand further on this idea, I would ask all who consider themselves to be "traditionalists", but attend illicit "Tridentine" Masses to consider this. Every liturgical celebration of the Holy Sacrifice offered anywhere in the world in any of the liturgical Rites of the Church, always has a special prayer in the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) for two individuals - The Pope, and the local Bishop in union with the Pope. It is under the authority of Christ through these two of His servants, successors of His Apostles, that the Holy Sacrifice is offered and celebrated. Where there is no Bishop there is no Church. This is true whether or not one likes or agrees with his/her Bishop.
My question is this. Not having ever attended a non-authorized "Tridentine" Mass, who exactly do they pray for at this point in the Mass? Who claims the authority under Christ for it's celebration?
Um no only Sesevacantist Tridentine masses don't pray for the pope most likely. The other allegedly so called 'illicit'(which they aren't) Masses like SSPX pray for the John Paul II. The SSPX is not schismatic or excommunicated.
"...together with Thy servant John Paul II, our Pope, and all the faithful Bishops throughout the world....."
While dissident theologians, liturgists, et al, have taken advantage of societal conditions in the Church and introduced many illicit novelties to the Mass during the past 40 years to push their new theology, this is not what Vatican II intended."
While I really don't have the time, nor will to do any debating at this point, I will posit a short response.
You are dealing with 2 seperate issues here: Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. You are trying to say that Vatican II didn't wish to create a new theology, and neither is the new mass, that it is the dissident liberals who are causing the mass to be implemented this way.
I know this has probably been pointed out before, but I must say it again: the dissident liberals were the very people in charge of creating the new mass. From the ring leader (archleftist Bugnini) to the protestants who were allowed to help deconstruct the Catholic mass in the name of ecuminism, the entire focus of the consilium which created it was to build a worship service for thier new theology (new evangelization, new springtime, new ecuminical nightmare).
I could provide quotes from here to the moon and back from figures involved in the whole mess, but they have been given over and over again. The simple truth is this: at the dawn of the council, the leftists managed to have 3 years of preparatory work scrapped, and new more "pastoral" schemas were drawn up hastily by the periti. These men included many who were blacklisted by Pius XII for heterodoxy (Rahner, Congar, Kung, Schillebeeckx, Murray). And what of these texts that they created, did they enunciate clearly and precisely the Catholic Faith, so as to allow only an orthodox interpretation? As Msgr. George Kelly put it "The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the post-conciliar difficulties understandable."
Why the ambiguity? Because these were the very people who would do the interpreting in the post conciliar era, for if anyone understood the spirit of these documents, surely the authors would. These are the very dissidents you speak of, "mis-interpreting" the Council, causing problems with the implementation of the mass, etc. Why are they able to? Because they left loopholes for themselves big enough to drive a truck through, right there in the documents which they themselves constructed.
So, now we have a Council with no preparatory work, heterodox "experts", and highly ambiguous texts being interpreted by the very "experts" who drew them up after they had been accepted by the Fathers.
Such a case was the mass. It was constructed after hte council by the man responsible for the schema on the liturgy- Annibale Bugnini. He had one goal in mind, and that wasn't the preservation of sacred tradition. It was to do away with it, and construct something more in line with the new theology of ecumenism. A couple quotes will suffice:
Archbishop Bugnini-"The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church, and it has ecumenical dimensions, since the other Churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired in itself, but equally as a sign of further progress to come." [Notitiae, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126.]quoted from Liturgical Timebombs in Vatican II, M. Davies.
Fr. Louis Bouyer, 1975(influential liturgist during time of Vatican II)-"The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to the secularised masses, but in reality to conform it with the buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose, whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice, varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were practising Catholics.... Those who were not have not displayed a trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they would win over with their clowning."
Father Joseph Gelineau (described by Bugnini as one of the "great masters of the international liturgical world")-"Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." It bears note that he was happy about this, not upset.
Cardinal Ottaviani (held position Ratzinger now holds)-"The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever."
English Catholic Bishops' refutation of validity of Anglican Orders from 1897-"That in earlier times local Churches were permitted to add new prayers and ceremonies is acknowledged . . . But that they were also permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies in previous use, and even to remodel the existing rites in the most drastic manner, is a proposition for which we know of no historical foundation, and which appears to us absolutely incredible."
I can go on interminably. This last 2 quotes are really the crux of the issue. They show why the problem is not one of implementation. The very fact that the new mass was created is out of line with what the Catholic Faith is about- permanence and stability. The new mass scrapped it, created something entirely new, and did so under the premise that it would not remain permanent, but would be in a constant state of flux so that it could speak to "modern man". Can modern man not expect other "out of touch" doctrines to be replaced in the same light?