I am not sure what you are refering to. It is easy enough to demonstrate that the Roman Canon, until post-Vatican II, was based upon and rooted in already long established ancient usages and liturgies, which can be scholarly dated all the way back to the 4th century, with no reason not to believe the original formulas were even of Apostolic origin and design. The ancient division between the two greater parts of the liturgy was “the Mass of the Catechumens” and “the Mass of the Faithful.” This division, for example, hails back to the times of the Roman persecutions.
Exactly this is the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia article too. Keep in mind that along with the Roman Canon there were and partially are Milan, Toledo, Sharum, Strigoniense and many other canons too; also thet the Canon is very important but only part of the Mass, cannot be identified with the whole mass.
The post-Vatican II liturgists desired to re-create an ancient liturgy believed to have existed in very early Christian antiquity, but this does not mean the already established canon did not have these same credentials of antiquity : it did, and this was already well known to scholars, and easily demonstrated. Notwithstanding, the Holy Father and a synod of Bishops did approve of the new mass, and His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, proceeded to promulgate it.
I have no proof what was the desire of the post Vatican II Liturgies. Please inform me, what is your source for your bold and definite statement. I am ready to learn
What I know for sure, what was the catechesis about the changes in the time of the introduction and what is the change defined by the Paul VI Missal and GIRM related to the previous form of the Mass. Let me explain it using the 1967 form of the Mass as basis:
- the Confiteor is slightly changed there is just one (as was before Trident in many places acknowledging that when the point is the sins the priest is same with us: sinner)
- the Lectionary was changed according to the order of the Council, to expand the amount of the Scriptures read in regular basis.
- the Offertory (which originates in the late medieval eves even in Rome; see Offertory article)) is changed, the Tridentine form being clear duplication unclear anticipation that the host is immaculate and has purifying power before the consecration. About this later please Read the Lavabo article as proof that even in the 18th Century (Benedict XIV) some Churches read only part of the required psalm. I suppose they did not agreed that they are innocent as the psalmist says.
- the words of the Consecration are changed to emphasize (by the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and from the Tridentine context) that the Eucharist is also meal, and omitting from the text the ‘mysterium fidei’ which has no biblical basis, putting it to the context.
- From the three prayers as the priest prepares himself to communion 2 are omitted, also only one is kept from the 3 Domine non sum dignus.
- also one on the priest’s after communion prayers is omitted, together with the Placeat tibi Sancta Trinitas
Above that are the changes made between 1955 and 1967, and the variations in the penitential rite and canon, which originally were recommended for special occasions only but unfortunately squeezed out the Confiteor and the Roman Canon. This is the decision of the priest and hopefully will be reversed.
The people facing altar was introduced in 1965 as option, out of blue w/o any historical or conciliar precedence, but it is option and not part of the Paul VI missal. I hope sincerely the new generation of the priests will understand that there is no appropriate architecture or reason for that, and the priest should lead the people to Christ.
If you think that there is any change let me know. Please save me from the abuses, I am aware of them knowing that abuse will be abuse regardless of the rite. No rite has magical power to prevent abuses.
