… one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; 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. (§62)
This New Liturgical Renewal went into high gear with Liturgicum Authenticam which requires vernacular translations of the most up-to-date revised Roman Missal to maintain the theology, doctrine, spirituality and even syntax of the Latin Original--which is the template still for the Latin Rite Modern or New Mass.
However, because the liturgy is never a dead entity, nor is the Church which is always reforming in the authentic orthodox way, Pope Paul VI allowed for limited use of the 1962 Missal although mandating the New Order in 1970 for the majority of Catholics. His Holiness did allow for broader use of the Church's ancient Liturgy for England. Pope Saint John Paul II allowed for a much broader application of the ancient Liturgical Form found in the 1962 Missal and of course Pope Benedict XVI allowed for the 1962 Missal and other liturgical celebrations of 1962 to be celebrated by every priest in the world.
Thus the liturgical life of the Church did not stall into an unchanging reality with the 1970 missal and much of the drivel of liturgical theologians of that period has been repudiated by more brilliant theologians of the stature of Pope Benedict.
Pope Francis has contributed to the on-going reform of the modern Liturgical idiom with the Ordinariate's Divine Worship, the Missal which contains His Holiness Imprimatur. At the same time, His Holiness mandated that the name of Saint Joseph be inserted in all of the modern Eucharistic Prayers of the Latin Rite. On the more progressive side, His Holiness has allowed, but is not forcing, the washing of the feet of women at the Holy Thursday Mandatum by tweaking the rubric for this ritual.
However, if you want to know about the archaeologism that I was taught in the 1970's seminary in order to elevate the Modern Order of the Mass and to denigrate the Ancient Order of the Mass handed down and organically developed from antiquity, this is what we were taught (although what is printed below is from a younger Benedictine Monk in Collegeville, Minnesota and printed in the last couple of days, talk about bringing me back to the 1970's!) My comments in red:
But there is no unchanging ‘Mass of all times,’ – I hope we’re clear on that point. (No Kidding! this is a rude Benedictine poke in the eye and quite nasty to say it in this rude way.)
Yes the Roman canon dates back some 1,500 years. But there were additions and variations in it well into the Middle Ages. And in the 4th or 5th century when that ancient canon was used in the Roman Rite: how about Prayers at Foot of the Altar? nope, didn’t exist yet. Nor the introit, nor the Kyrie, nor the Gloria. Not yet part of the Roman rite. Did the pope genuflect, or elevate the Host and Chalice at the consecration? No, not for nearly another 1,000 years – he prayed the canon straight through with no such gestures. No Agnus Dei yet. No altar rail, no kneeling for Communion. No withdrawal of chalice, for laity only received under both forms. No Last Gospel. Communion bread? Big loaf, leavened, no little unleavened hosts. Language of Roman liturgy in 4th century? Same Latin for canon as for the sermon – just let that sink in! The preaching was in the same language as the canon, the vernacular of the people. (Everything written in this succinct paragraph tells you about the Collegeville Benedictines' use of archaelogism beginning in the 1950's to deconstruct the liturgical patrimony of the Latin Rite which developed in an organic way over centuries. If you want to know about modern Catholic iconoclasm of the liturgy and of our church buildings, read this paragraph over and over again. This is what I taught about the Liturgy too and thus as a newly ordained [riest in order to lift up the Modern Form, I had to denigrate the Ancient organically developed form just as this modern Benedictine does which he inherited from his particular Benedictine community. In the 1970's I went to seminary Masses without an entrance chant or spoken introit, no Sign of the Cross, no Kyrie, just greeting and made up Collect. The Eucharistic prayer had no genuflections or elevations. Some other hymn was substituted for the Agnus Dei and leavened crusty French bread was used; no one kneeled except when the Mass was on the floor, meaning no altar, just a cloth on the floor and we sat Indian style for the Mass!)
And most important of all...: the Mass in the 4th century, like the Mass of Vatican II, was an act of the people (e.g. they sang a vernacular responsorial psalm refrain, there was no ‘gradual’ yet by the schola – just reflect on the ecclesiology implicit in that!), and the Mass had not yet undergone its Carolingian transformation into a clerical drama that the people attended, prayed at, were inspired by, perhaps loved, but did not participate directly in. (Organic development in one era might not be the best in another. But to imply that the EF Mass can't be participative is shear lunacy. To say that a person who hears Mass but does not speak or sing is not directly participating in it is an ideological lie of the now 1970's repudiated liturgists who had another agenda in mind. And to raise a form of ecclesiology to a liturgical dogma is just silly! But folks, the good Benedictine in a nutshell shows you what the 1970's was all about and why the liturgy we have today is in the state it is in. It needs reform starting with the ideology and achaeologism of this particular Benedictine's school of thought!)
So if you’re hoping we can go back to the way it always was, … dream on.
But there is no unchanging ‘Mass of all times,’ – I hope we’re clear on that point.
My final comments: So if you want to know the perspective of Archbishop Bugnini and his cohorts as well as what led to unofficial exploitation of the Modern Roman Missal, read once again what the Benedictine Monk writes which I have highlighted above.
You can see too how this dastardly ideology (it can't rightly be called even theology) led to the desacralization of not only the Mass but of our church buildings with wreckovations and horrible new architecture. The Collegeville Abbey being a case in point.
While some of what he writes is the underpinning of some of the reforms of our modern missal, much of what he writes is what led priests to implement illicitly these aspects and impose them on the Modern Liturgy. It still happens today but less so than in the 1970's in which this ideology found its apex in high and low places.