At the bottom of this post is the first part of a pre-1962 Roman Missal Mass filmed in a television studio in French Canada in 1960. I would have been almost 7 years old at the time. The Mass is toward to the congregation and celebrated by a bishop. It is a Low Mass with the complete Church present in her ecclesiology, that of the Bishop, priests and laity and most importantly the One who gathers them, Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit each doing what is prescribed of them for the celebration of Holy Mass. There is no difference in this "Introductory Rite" with the extended Prayers at the Foot of the Altar with the laity's responses as compared to the Revised Mass and its much briefer introductory Rite.
There are those to the middle of the left who are dogmatic about what Vatican II intended and didn't and this ideological group is the most dogmatic about non infallible instructions on the revision of the Mass that would lead to more communal interaction and participation of the clergy and laity at Mass. These left to the middle Catholics would seem to think in the most wrong-headed way possible that this form of the Mass revised a bit in 1962's Roman Missal was outlawed by Vatican II and confirmed as being abrogated once and for all for all of eternity by Pope Paul VI because he was following the dogmatism of an infallible Council as it concerns the revision of the Mass and a new discovery, that the Mass is to be communal, as though the pre-1962 Roman Missal couldn't be and wasn't because of its intrinsically flawed ecclesiology as though ecclesiology could be defined in the post-Vatican II Church as a completely different doctrine compared to the pre-Vatican II Church. Talk about rupture in continuity in a flawed theology and way of thinking of those left of the center in the Church.
A Benedictine priest at another blog's comment section, who should know better, makes the most dogmatic statement I have ever read about what the Council Father's desired for the Mass and how they denigrated the Mass that was celebrated at Vatican II to do so. I find this statement incredulous but here goes:
"The old rite, no matter how emotionally people are invested in it, no matter how closely they follow it during its celebration, does not express the nature of the Church according to the fathers of Vatican II. Clericalized sacred drama, no matter how prayerfully one prays along with it, is not what the fathers of Vatican II wanted. (There were such liturgies before Vatican II so they would have known about them.) The fathers wanted a liturgy communal in form, not merely in shared emotionality (or, less polemically, shared spirituality). One can debate endlessly whether this or that detail of the reformed rite follows the prescriptions of SC. That is rather beside the point. The main point is that the reformed liturgy is communal in form, – and this, and only this, is what Catholic liturgy is to be after Vatican II. How Summorum pontificum fits into this remains a mystery to me."
I can't believe my eyes when I read such drivel! Is the most important thing about the post-Vatican II Mass its communal nature and ecclesiology or is it God who gathers the community of believers both clergy and laity the most important aspect of the Liturgy, where the Paschal Mystery is made present for the salvation of souls, where the Mystical Body of Christ is made visible in time and place? Of these two things is there any difference in the pre-Vatican II Missals and the post-Vatican II Revised Missals?
Who is trying to kid whom here? Has ecclesiology and the communal nature of the Liturgy become damnable false idols?
The revision of the Mass can never be considered an infallible act, even if the theology unpinning that revision is of a different theology that preceded it. Theology can't be dogmatic. Only dogmas and doctrines can be dogmatic.