It’s my belief/understandnig that Vatican II’s teachings on the Liturgy are infallible. However, it’s implementation afterwards are where problems have occurred. Much of what happened after the council is a result of misinterpretation of what the council really intended. If the council was implemented correctly we would not see much difference between the Tridentine Mass and the current Mass. Our “modern” churches would not be built the way then have been. We would have seen “organic” development rather than an sudden change.
Please correct me if any of what I stated is wrong.
Infallibility has to do with Faith and Morals. The directions in the Liturgy are neither. Vatican 2 covered a number of things, and people who don’t like what has occured since Vatican 2 are quick to point fingers and make statements that do little more than show their own ignorance of the Church and its teachings.
For example: Communion in the hand is not a moral issue; it is an issue of practice. Further, it is not mandated; it is allowed. And further than that, it is so well documented that Communion in the hand was the practice of the early Church that it is not even an issue of discussion as to it’s historical fact. One may not like it, or feel that it is horrible; but that is an issue of personal opinion, and sadly, people often have personal opinions at odds with Church practices. The Church tolerates personal opinions at odds with it’s choices and directions to a large extent, and pretty much always has. People simply don’t know their history.
In short, there are many self professed “moral theologians” with no training whatsoever, who make pronouncements as to the moral rightness or wrongness of liturgical rules. And their opinon and $2.00 will get them somewhere on the local bus.
As to whether or not we would see much difference between the Mass rite prior to Vatican 2 and today if changes ahd been gradual is simply a matter of pure and unadulterated specualtion. It presumes, underneath the statement, that the members of Vatican 2 had certain intentions, and that simply cannot be proved in a way that the question posited can be answered. Some of them intended that major changes be made; some intended less major changes, some intended none at all (and obvioulsy were not succesful in their position; the documents would not say what they do were they successful). The movement in liturgy did not start with Vatican 2 in any way; it had been going on for years.
That it was all to rapid and all to chaotic, I think, is something that many, if not almost all people might agree to; perhaps excepting the very liberal fringe - and that is a small minority. But to posit that the Mass would look pretty much like what it did, say, in 1962 simply cannot be shown; it is pure specualtion. There is no basis to presume that only minor changes would be made and then all liturguical change stopped. Would we have the rite as we have today; again, speculation without a foundation.
We have what we have, and there seems to be little discussion from most parts of the world as to whether it is good or bad; perhaps that is because most of the liturgical experimentation has occured in Europe, Canada, the United States, and perhaps Australia. I have heard almost no comments about the chages in the Liturgy from, say, Africa, or Asia, or South or Central America. Just an interesting observation.
The possibilities are many and none indicate that the previous decision was wrong.
.