How the Liturgical Dirty Deed Was Done

Although this is a 1999 essay, it is pertinent because of the reign of Francis I and his malevolent liturgical pronouncements and Vatican liturgical staffers.  Yes, we said "malevolent."

Cdl. Stickler served as a peritus for the Document on the Liturgy.  He was based in Rome, and was one of six who wrote the draft document, participated in or audited all the debates and discussions, and as a result, knew the final document very, very, well.

...You can understand my astonishment when I found that the final edition of the new Roman Missal [1969] in many ways did not correspond to the Conciliar texts that I knew so well, and that it contained much that broadened, changed or even was directly contrary to the Council's provisions. Since I knew precisely the entire proceeding of the Council, from the often very lengthy discussions and the processing of the modi up to the repeated votes leading to the final formulations, as well as the texts that included the precise regulations for the implementation of the desired reform, you can imagine my amazement, my growing displeasure, indeed my indignation, especially regarding specific contradictions and changes that would necessarily have lasting consequences....

So....how did that happen?  Cdl. Stickler visited with Cdl. Gut, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Liturgy (Rites) and asked that question.

...he shared my concerns completely. He emphasized, however, that the Congregation of Rites bore no blame, for the entire work of reform had been achieved by the Consilium, which was appointed by the Pope specifically for that purpose, and for which Paul VI had chosen Cardinal Lercaro as president and Fr. Bugnini as secretary. This group worked under the direct supervision of the Pope....

Oh?  

Cdl. Stickler knew Bugnini's track record; he described it as 'unsatisfactory,' and as a result, Bugnini was NOT placed on the implementing Consilium.........until...........

 ...An organized group of liturgists represented this neglect to Paul VI as an injustice against Fr. Bugnini, and they managed to see that the new Pope, who was very sensitive to such procedures, righted that "injustice" by naming Fr. Bugnini as secretary of the new Consilium responsible for the implementation of the reform.

Both of these appointments — of Cardinal Lercaro and Fr. Bugnini — to key positions on the Consilium made it possible for voices to be heard that could not be heard during the proceedings of the Council, and likewise silenced others. The work of the Consilium was accomplished in working areas that were inaccessible to non-members....

In other words, 'Bugsy' Bugnini perverted the work of the Second Vatican Council on the liturgy.

+Stickler describes the intent of the reforms as voiced in the Document on the Liturgy (DoL):

... According to article 33, the liturgy is principally the cult of the majesty of God, in which worshippers come into relation with Him by means of visible signs that the liturgy uses in order to express invisible realities, which have been chosen by Christ Himself or by the Church. Here there is a vibrant echo of what the Council of Trent of the Catholic Church already recommended in order to protect her patrimony from the rationalistic and spiritless emptiness of Protestant worship, a patrimony which the Holy Father [John Paul II] in his writings on the Eastern churches has characterized as their special treasure. This "special treasure" also deserves to be a source of nourishment for the Catholic Church. It distinguishes itself by being rich in symbolism, thus providing didactic and pastoral education and enrichment, making it splendidly suited even to the simplest people. When we consider that the Orthodox churches, despite their separation from the rock of the Church, through the symbolic expression and theological progress that continuously found entrance into their liturgy, have preserved the correct beliefs and the sacraments, every Roman Catholic liturgical reform should rather increase the symbolic richness of its form of worship than (sometimes even drastically) decrease it....

You're beginning to see what +Cdl. Stickler's objection centers around, no?  Well--just in case you don't, here's one specific:

...Article 36 speaks about the liturgical language generally, and article 54 of the Mass in particular cases. After a discussion lasting several days, in which arguments for and against were discussed, the Council fathers came to the clear conclusion — wholly in agreement with the Council of Trent — that Latin must be retained as the language of cult in the Latin rite, although exceptional cases were possible and even welcome...

Read those articles (36 & 54) yourself.  It is impossible to come to any other conclusion--unless you're 'Bugsy' Bugnini.

As to music:

 ...Article 116 speaks extensively about Gregorian chant, noting that it has been the classical chant of the Roman Catholic liturgy since the time of Gregory the Great, and as such must be retained. Polyphonic music also deserves attention and cultivation. The other articles of Chapter VI, on sacred music, speak about appropriate music and singing in the Church and the liturgy, and emphasize splendidly the important, indeed the fundamental role of the pipe organ in the Catholic liturgy....

Not the piano, and certainly not any 'guitar-and-combo' group.  Period.

We'll leave you with the Cardinal's summary of the history and purpose of the Divine Liturgy:

...The Church and the liturgy grow and develop together, but always in such a way that the earthly is organized around the heavenly. The Mass comes from Christ; it was adopted by the apostles and their successors as well as by the Fathers of the Church; it developed organically, with the conscious retention of its substance. The liturgy developed along with the Faith that is contained within it; thus we can say, with Pope Celestine I, in his writings to the Gallican bishops in the year 422: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi: The liturgy contains, and in proper and comprehensible ways, brings the Faith to expression. In this sense the constancy of the liturgy participates in the constancy of the Faith itself; indeed it contributes to its protection....

And his summary of what are the liturgical 'first things':

...Never has there been, therefore, in any of the Christian-Catholic rites, a break, a radically new creation — with the exception of the post-Conciliar reform. But the Council again and again demanded for the reform a strict adherence to tradition. All reforms, beginning with Gregory I through the Middle Ages, during the entry into the Church of the most disparate peoples with their various customs, have observed this ground rule. This is, incidentally, a characteristic of all religions, including non-revealed ones, which proves that an attachment to tradition is standard in any religious worship, and is therefore natural.

It is not surprising, therefore, that every heretical offshoot from the Catholic Church featured a liturgical revolution, as is most clearly recognized in the case of the Protestants and the Anglicans; while the reforms effected by the popes, and particularly stimulated by the Council of Trent and carried out by Pope Pius V, through those of Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII, were no revolutions, but merely insignificant corrections, alignments and enrichments. Nothing new should be introduced, the Council expressly says of the reform desired by the fathers, which the genuine good of the Church does not demand. ...

By corollary, if one observes decay in the Church, the introduction of 'something new' must be examined carefully with abrogating such change as a remedy which must be strongly considered.

We (Dad29) consider the problems in the (Western) Church to be the result of a perfect storm consisting of Enlightenment rationalism and gross materialism, among other things--including the flaccidity of (or lack of) orthodox teaching by the Bishops on matters of Right Order, especially concerning sexuality.  The facile 'post-hoc ergo propter hoc' (blame the Liturgy for all evils) is, while a tempting 'quick fix', not the entire remedy.  Not by a long shot.

But the Cardinal's essay (lots more at the link, including very useful specifics) should give pause to the progressives who insist--along with Francis I--that obliterating the Traditional Mass is the cure.  The question to them should be "Cure of WHAT?"

(If you wish to read a lot more on the topic, start with the links presented in this article.)