Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ!
I have been studying to the best of my ability why the changes that ensued after Vatican II's Sacrosanctum concilium were justified. I am stumped. How is it we got what we did after Vatican II. I have read SC and the closing statements of the first Council session and it does not appear in the mind of the Council fathers that anything overtly dramatic was to be changed in regards to the liturgy. I have looked over the 1965 interim-Missal and the ordo seems to have been a rather simplified version of the 1962 (i.e. - prays at foot of altar omitted, readings in vernacular, among other things)...nothing earth shaking. Why the complete whitewashing and starting anew? I know this subject is broad but I am really troubled by what I am studying about the going-ons of the Consilium and those involved. Not a traditionalist, although I do sympathize with their arguments. Love the Mass (new and old) but have a hard time seeing the justification of the reforms of the Missal of Paul VI in light of fidelity to tradition.