Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its contents in concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.
In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer.
"THE MASS IS THE SAME"
Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Audience, November 19, 1969
Our Dear Sons and Daughters:
1. We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. It will become obligatory in Italian dioceses from the First Sunday of Advent, which this year falls on November 30. The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will it have on those who attend Holy Mass? Answers will be given to these questions, and to others like them, arising from this innovation. You will hear the answers in all the Churches. They will be amply repeated there and in all religious publications, in all schools where Christian doctrine is taught. We exhort you to pay attention to them. In that way you will be able to get a clearer and deeper idea of the stupendous and mysterious notion of the Mass.
3. But in this brief and simple discourse We will try only to relieve your minds of the first, spontaneous difficulties which this change arouses. We will do so in relation to the first three questions which immediately occur to mind because of it.
4. How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished.
5. "For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance. Elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers" (Sacrosanctum Concilium #50).
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.
7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante's improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.
8. This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church, the heir and continuation of that first Christian community, which was all "one single heart and a single soul" (Acts 4:32). The choral character of the Church's prayer is one of the strengths of her unity and her catholicity. The change about to be made must not break up that choral character or disturb it. It ought to confirm it and make it resound with a new spirit, the spirit of her youth.
9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?
10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action--experienced and living--of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.
12. The unity of the Lord's Supper, of the Sacrifice on the cross of the re-presentation and the renewal of both in the Mass, is inviolably affirmed and celebrated in the new rite just as they were in the old. The Mass is and remains the memorial of Christ's Last Supper. At that Supper the Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and His Blood, and instituted the Sacrifice of the New Testament. He willed that the Sacrifice should be identically renewed by the power of His Priesthood, conferred on the Apostles. Only the manner of offering is different, namely, an unbloody and sacramental manner; and it is offered in perennial memory of Himself, until His final return (cf. De la Taille, Mysterium Fidei, Elucd. IX).
13. In the new rite you will find the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, strictly so called, brought out more clearly, as if the latter were the practical response to the former (cf. Bonyer). You will find how much the assembly of the faithful is called upon to participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and how in the Mass they are and fully feel themselves "the Church." You will also see other marvelous features of our Mass. But do not think that these things are aimed at altering its genuine and traditional essence.
14. Rather try to see how the Church desires to give greater efficacy to her liturgical message through this new and more expansive liturgical language; how she wishes to bring home the message to each of her faithful, and to the whole body of the People of God, in a more direct and pastoral way.
15. In like manner We reply to the third question: What will be the results of this innovation? The results expected, or rather desired, are that the faithful will participate in the liturgical mystery with more understanding, in a more practical, a more enjoyable and a more sanctifying way. That is, they will hear the Word of God, which lives and echoes down the centuries and in our individual souls; and they will likewise share in the mystical reality of Christ's sacramental and propitiatory sacrifice.
16. So do not let us talk about "the new Mass." Let us rather speak of the "new epoch" in the Church's life.
With Our Apostolic Benediction.
end of quote
All Popes from Pope Paul VI to Pope Benedict XVI are in agreement re. the Reformed/Revised Rite.
Traditionalists oppose every single Pope since Pope Paul VI on this fundamental point. This is one of their most egregious errors and they repeat it ceaselessly.
As an Orthodox Christian, I am free to ignore Paul VI's self-serving justification. He also was speaking without any benefit whatsoever of seeing the fruit of his works. Maybe the guy really believed all of that "infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium" stuff, and truly believed that it all had to turn out alright.
As Tantumergo points out (and I am not implying that he, as a faithful Catholic, would agree with my above paragraph), the documents of Vat II neither intended the nonsense that we see today, and they specifically say that the formulations of Catholic teaching can be incorrect.
Ratzinger, writing in 1986, was relatively new to the Grand Inquisitor job, and it was his job to defend the order and discipline of the Church. This would of course include the N.O., which JPII most obviously supported without reservation. Even so, Ratzinger's other words in the same section from which you quote are hardly those of a fan:
"Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual grown process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had "produced" a Missal four hundred years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times. This loss of perspective is really disturbing."
Allow me to translate: the revisionists basically claimed that Trent had made a liturgy for their time, and now they, in the wake of Vat II, were making a liturgy for the modern era. They claimed that they were doing the same thing that the folks at Trent had done. Ratzinger correctly fingered this as complete nonsense. If one examines the various Western liturgies in use prior to Trent, the close continuity is obvious. On a scale of 1 to 10, the changes at Trent were a 1, and the changes between what was experience in 1950 compared to what was experienced in 1980 are a 10.
Ratzinger has repeatedly articulated the strong belief that this is quite simply wrong. He has repeatedly articulated the belief that the Pope does not have the right to just do what he wants with the Liturgy.
Consider the quotes from Ratzinger's book review that was quoted earlier in this thread. He has, if anything, waxed stronger in his beliefs that liturgical changes should be organic, slow, and with obvious continuity -- and that the post Vat II liturgical changes have been anything but.
Another section that you didn't quote is the following:
"Although very few of those who express their uneasiness have a clear picture of these interrelated factors, there is an instinctive grasp of the fact that liturgy cannot be the result of Church regulations, let alone professional erudition, but, to be true to itself, must be the fruit of the Church’s life and vitality."
Allow me again to translate: The traditionalists are wrong in their insistence that the Tridentine order cannot ever change. Liturgy must be able to change and grow. He cites several examples of things he is grateful for in the new Missal: the vernacular, new eucharist prayers, and an enrichment of prayers and prefaces. Note that he does not praise everything in the N.O. -- only that there are elements that are praiseworthy. BUT, he hones in on the fact that they have an "instinctive grasp" that something is very wrong -- that it isn't enough just to follow the official church "regulations," and that the academic approach to concocting a liturgy is not the right one.
He carefully words his overt criticisms to emphasize the way that the N.O. was presented, but I find it interesting that he speaks of a new edition being needed. Could he merely be talking about introductory material explaining what it is "really" about? It hardly seems likely that a new edition would be needed for that. I would imagine that he has in mind a revision that will emphasize those aspects of the N.O. missal that are in continuity with the liturgical tradition, and that will quietly drop the wilder flights of fancy.
I think that perhaps more to the point is the fact that the N.O was quite intentionally presented as a new thing -- allowing all sorts of things to enter under the guise of "the new mass." Could he have in mind new rubrics -- such as those specifically turning the priest around to face the right direction -- the direction of all liturgical Christian prayer until very recent times? Could he have in mind moving the crucifix/cross to its traditional place in the center, rather than off to the side?
I don't know. I'm merely speculating. But what I do know is that as someone who is deeply involved in the liturgical life of the Orthodox church, I am happy to have someone like B16 around, who seems to understand better than any of his predecessors of recent memory what Liturgy is about.