(snipped for brevity)
Unfortunately, we lost half the soda bottle and now I’m thinking of all those baptized Catholics who don’t go to Mass anymore. I know the pill gets a lot of the blame, but during an upheaval like the Sexual Revolution, we needed the stability of our faith the most. There had to have been a better way to release the liturgical tension of four centuries and not lose so many souls.
Your theory that we didn’t copy the Protestants is not as immediately solid and I’ll take some more time to dwell on it. It seems somewhat specious to contend something our neighbours were doing for four centuries we just happened to adopt because it made sense at the time. It’s true Protestants are not locked into one historical liturgical expression, but then again, perhaps that’s why there are so many denominations of them.
I’ve read some other perspectives that state the Protestant reforms to the liturgy were for deeper reasons than convenience and familiarity.
Some contend that turning the priest around was to decrease the emphasis on Sacrifice, going away from a high altar onto a table furthered that direction towards a community meal. 
Switching to the native tongue from a sacred was to lessen the importance of the priesthood itself.
Ah yes, the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity was paramount.
Of course I’m sure you’re aware of these counter-arguments. If I can rely on responses like yours then I’ll be encouraged to seek out more answers here. I greatly admire your knowledge and endeavor to build up the same some day.
I do agree with Mark that we didn’t intend to “copy” the average Protestant services that we see today, but from all that I’ve read & studied, ecumenicism was a
priority at the council. Our traditional type of ecumenicim was conversion…to live our faith in our daily life, to be such shining examples of holy people that we caused non-Catholics to WANT to examine our faith.
Not any more, Vatican II’s effort was not directed toward Converting non-Catholics. It was directed toward changing the Church to make it more palatable to non-Catholics. Think about this, the biggest problems that Protestants have with our Church are:
- You “worship” Mary
- You believe that Christ is really present on your Altars. You teach that He is offering Himself as an unbloody Sacrifice again & again.
I will first refer you to the words of Father Karl Rahner who tried, before & after the council, to concoct a philosophy of “Spiritual, but not physical Perpetual Virginity” of Mary. Rahner was the darling of the periti, sometimes called the Father of the Council, the author of the words & ideas behind the “Anonymous Christian” theory. His words about the first Marian Schema presented at the Council:
"According to Father Rahner, whose written comments were distributed to all participants in the conference, (why?? he was simply a guest) the schema as then drafted was ‘a source of the greatest concern’…
Were the text to be accepted as it stood, he contended, ‘unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants.’ It could not be too strongly stressed, he said,** 'that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the (Marian) schema as it stands.**
marycoredemptrix.com/perpetual_virginity.html
You have already found Annibale Bugnini’s infamous quote & that was the second proof of the purpose of the council.
While, as I said before, I don’t believe that the council set out to “copy” today’s average Protestant services…I definitely believe that those who hijacked the council, members of our own hierarchy & the periti that attended the council were determined to make our Mass & our religion more palatable to what they considered “sophisticated”
non-Catholic religions, such as the Lutheran Church & the Anglicans, etc. The comparison between the Novus Ordo Mass & the Mass that Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII, wrote… is very revealing:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm
The last document that I’ll reference is called the Ottaviani Intervention. You may have already studied this, if so, I apologize. It’s a letter, written to Pope Paul VI, by Cardinal Ottaviani & Cardianl Bacci:
An excerpt:“The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.”
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
I’m not trying to influence you, you seem perfectly capable of finding the truth, yourself. These are just some documents you may not have read yet.
