Replies

I would agree with you that a greater problem has been the latter instructions from Rome and how the Novus Ordo has implemented on the local level but this does not mean that the new Missal is without problems itself. One need not have written a master's thesis to be conversant with the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium. SC speaks of a restoration, not of the composition of a new rite. The specific reforms contemplated by the council are addressed in Chapter II:

50. 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, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being 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; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.
53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world.
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
56. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.
57. (1) Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:
1. (a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.
(b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;
(c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.
2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:
(a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;
(b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.
(2) 1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of con-celebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.
2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.
58. A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.

This is a very modest set of reforms. As to how the NO exceeds these:

1) The new introductory rite is a confusing complication of multiple choices, not a simplification. Additionally the "intrinsic nature and purpose" of this rite as a private confession of the priest and his ministers, and not of the general congregation, has been lost. These rites were a prelude to the liturgy, not an introduction. Since the congregation never participated in this action, this change can in no way be said to be a "restoration."
2) The suppression of "Dominus vobiscum" before the orations confuses what was a part of the invitation to prayer along with "Oremus" to being a greeting at the beginning of the Mass.
3) The reduction of the Kyrie from a ninefold to a sixfold form was unnecessary.
4) There was no suggestion at the council that the propers of the Mass should be rewritten.
5) The elimination of the offertory prayers was an excessive impoverishment of the Mass. Nor is there any precedent for their replacement with the present prayers that come from Jewish table blessings. This is an example where the theology of the Mass is actually clouded, giving the impression that the Catholic understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice has been replaced with one that would emphasis it more as a communal meal.
6) The elimination of the various bows and genuflections during the Mass lessened the sense of the sacred and the reminder that we are in the presence of the Almighty.
7) There is no call that new Eucharistic Prayers should be composed to replace the venerable Roman Canon.
8) No mention was made in SC that the Canon should be spoken in a loud voice by the priest. This is a priestly prayer dependent on Holy Orders, not one of the community. The priest in praying in persona Christi on behalf of the people; he is not, at this point in the Mass, leading the people in prayer.
9) The embolism at the end of the Lord's Prayer was an unnecessary innovation.
10) The inversion of Ite missa est and the blessing at the end of the Mass, although minor, was unnecessary.
11) The reform of the liturgical calender was excessive.

The overall impression of the NO is that of a rupture with tradition, not a restoration. I also wish to point out that I have not argued for a return to an unreformed "Tridentine" Mass but rather that, with the exception of an expanded Lectionary, the Missal of 1965 contains all the reforms that were called for by the council. Yes, the council called for a reform but I stand by my statement that the NO goes beyond what was intended and that the unreformed rite is actually closer to what the council fathers had in mind that what we have today.