[nika]

There's no need to cite anybody, since everybody knowledgeable knows that Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo, not Vatican II
--ultima ratio

When did anyone say the Novus Ordo was initiated directly by Vatican II? You are often debating a straw man instead of anyone on this forum. You might argue that there is no connection between the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, that one is completely independent of the other. You would be wrong, but you could at least argue that and be saying something pertinent to the discussion.

Your first citation of Mediator Dei, the one that starts:

Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent ...

also has nothing to do with anything being discussed here, except that it points out that there were abuses of the liturgy long before Vatican II and that even then there were people like yourself who were disobedient to the Holy See. Whose side are you on? Yours or mine?

Your other citations condemn your own position even more clearly. Here they are with some of the context restored which you conveniently left out:

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. [ Hmmm.... The sacred liturgy is ENTIRELY SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION AND APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE.... Who around here acknowledges JP II is the legitimate successor of St. Peter yet refuses to accept his authority in matters concerning the sacred liturgy??? --nika ]

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. [ Yes. It most certainly is. The liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II brought the church nearer to the liturgy of the early church, whose Christianity converted the known world. "All veneration" includes your veneration, ultima. --nika ] But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. [ Right. Its being worthy of "all veneration" isn't based on its being old. No problem there. --nika ] The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. [ Like liturgical rites brought about by the reforms initiated by Vatican II. --nika ] They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. [ Yes they certainly do owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, Whom you resist, ultima. --nika ]

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. [ Amen!!! And that is exactly what was done by the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II. --nika ] But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. [ Of course. As was mentioned above, "The sacred liturgy is entirely subject to the descretion and approval of the Holy See." The legitimate successor of St. Peter at that time did not allow those things. Therefore those practices are forbidden until the legitimate successor of St. Peter allows them. It is all really very simple, ultima, if one possesses the basic virtue of obedience. --nika ]

The problem has always been disobedience, whether it be by modernists or by so-called "traditionalists." If both sides would just obey the Holy See in liturgical matters we wouldn't need to have these discussions.

[ultima ratio]

1. Here is what you said: "You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way."

Your claim that I don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes is ridiculous--since they didn't make any substantial changes, though they made a few minor suggestions. My quarrel has always been with the Novus Ordo, and that came later, after the Council closed. So your original point was far off the mark.

Now you claim a connection--that Vatican II planned for a Bugnini-type Mass all along. But this is just another display of your ignorance on these matters. Most of the Council fathers never in their wildest dreams envisioned anything so devastating and unCatholic as the Novus Ordo. And my point on the citation about ancient usages was not that they were not venerable as Pius XII says, but that what we've got now in the Novus Ordo is not that venerable usage but a modernist concoction having more to do with copying Martin Luther's rejection of Catholicism than with any authentic rite from antiquity.

2. Nobody said the pope had no authority to change the language of the Roman Rite from Latin to the vernacular, if he so wishes. But that said, it's still a dumb thing to have permitted. I have made this distinction time after time. Popes and councils have all sorts of authority to do and say all sorts of things--not all of them wise or prudent. Yes, they should be given all due respect and adherence, even in non-binding matters. But such respect and adherence is predicated on their being faithful servants of the Catholic faith and protectors of Sacred Tradition. Once they cynically abandon that faith and Tradition, they open themselves up to our justifiable demurrals.

The notion, therefore, that because Vatican II or some popes say or do something, this is always good and wise--is wrong. Only their specifically binding definitions on faith and morals are divinely protected. Otherwise they can say that pigs can fly and order everybody to eat fried grasshoppers on Fridays--and do so with impunity.

In one fell swoop, for instance, the introduction of the vernacular destroyed Church unity of worship, creating a babel of voices and a stultifying mundanity of expression from which it has not yet recovered. The pope had the authority to do this--but lacked the wisdom to appreciate the consequences of such a radical action. That said, even so we are talking about language only--not the invention of a whole rite that had never evolved from anything prior. The Novus Ordo, after all, was an invention, not a restoration of anything, nor even a reformation of anything. Nor is the fabrication of new rites so clearly something a pope has the authority to do--which is why it is theologically disputed.

3. You claim, "The problem has always been disobedience, whether it be by modernists or by so-called 'traditionalists.' If both sides would just obey the Holy See in liturgical matters we wouldn't need to have these discussions."

But the Holy See is itself at the root of the problem. It is not the cure but the cause of the present devastation--and it is itself not even fully Catholic since it numbers in its personnel men who are openly apostate or heretical and hostile to the Catholic faith itself, along with its traditions.

In the final analysis, the bad situation in the Church was not created by the faithful who cling to their traditions, but by the men who lead the Church and seek to abandon Catholicism. They and they only are to blame for the present chaos. Their failures in faith have in turn destroyed the faiths of countless millions who have walked away from the Church in disgust, and it is these leaders who are primarily at fault, not the rest of us.

Had the Holy See itself obeyed Sacred Tradition and passed-on what had been transmitted through the centuries by the Church, the destruction might have been avoided. But it was careless about its own patrimony and severed its connection to Tradition. As a result, what the Church has now in the Novus Ordo is a rite that DESTROYS Catholic faith rather than upholds it. And it suffers under a Vatican bureaucracy that is no longer committed to Catholicism.