It seems these discussions surface periodically. Given the number of threads currently running on the topic of the mass, I felt it was time to toss this one out for discussion.
The bishops voted 2700 to 4 in favor of a general restoration of the liturgy itself.
Whether or not you agree with the liturgical changes undertaken by these 2700 bishops, the liturgy of the Novus Ordo remains valid.
Agreed. It's probably known (I have said before) I am not a member of any traditionalist organization.
Something may be valid enough in theory, all very well and good, and turn out to be a disaster of biblical proportions in practice. It may be valid to say Mass in a building that is as sterile as a basketball gymnasium while not being desirable for Catholics accustomed to worshipping in an environment adorned with representational sacred art. It may be "valid" canonically to say "Mass" in the new chic ultra-modern minimalist LA cathedral which is still silly and absurd on a purely aesthetic level. The Novus Ordo Mass can be said by priests reverently and with a great deal of pious devotion while it also has an uncanny tendency to open up to weirdness of all sorts as well. A folk guitar Mass may be valid sacramentally while being highly annoying to people who don't like giddy 1960s and 1970s folk music. Likewise, someone like Bernardin or Weakland may have been validly ordained while still being extremely annoying and unpleasant figures.
The Mass that is usually shown on EWTN from the monastery in Alabama is valid and reverent. I don't take issue with this way of saying Mass, with the goals of Adoremus or similar variations of the Novus Ordo celebrated by orthodox Catholics who reject other liberal and progressive deviations. A lot seems to depend on the intentions and theological orientation of the priests. I don't care whether it's valid or not to celebrate Mass in a building which is an ultra-modernist minimalist iconoclastic monstrosity. I disagree with the cultural and aesthetic assumptions personally. Bad taste is not a good prudential judgment call for Catholic worship. We can debate this for sure. I'll stand with Cordelia Marchmain (in Brideshead Revisited) that modern art is "bosh." Just because we could validly worship in a StarTrek spaceship or a Seattle "Space Needle" doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. While a Mass could be celebrated validly on the bridge of the Enterprise, I would hope the "building committee" would get other proposals from the Irish and Italian multigenerational contractors for the design of my local parish. I see no need for modernist shopping mall architecture for Catholic spaces of worship. I think the modern auditorium design for Catholic parish churches is a mistaken way to understand how to intepret Vatican II.
You will agree, of course, that the Tridentine Mass in Latin is a valid way for Catholics to worship at Mass. And that Catholics in the 1950s were not less valid as Catholics than those worshipping today. I have trouble with the idea that somehow G.K. Chesterton and Edmund Campion were not as authentic because they worshipped differently from Frances Kissling and Rembert Weakland. I see no point to having folk guitars, garish modern art, long political-speech sermons, clapping, liturgical dancing, and germ-spreading handshaking at Catholic Masses. Whether the sacraments at such Masses are valid seems irrelevant. We don't need everybody and your grandmother hovering around the altar and pulpits either. The "the active participation of the people" does not mean we need lesbian musical ministers, but this phrase lends itself to wide interpretation. I've seen parishes where the ushers act like they are taking tickets at a movie theatre. We don't need a lot of aggressive and unnecessary movement and noise at Mass to effect the presence of Christ. In some cases, shorter sermons would be a very good idea.
What seems to be going on is that a door was opened by Vatican II that has let in a lot of silly and annoying things. That doesn't mean Mass in English is wrong or that some of the ideas of liturgical reform are without merit. Moving tabernacles, using improper liturgical vessels, political speeches as sermons, weird art, funky music... - these seem to be part of an un-Catholic liberal agenda. Most educated and/or conservative Catholics who object to these things are right to do so on the level of prudential judgment.