I assume you mean that it is so in principle. The question is: At what point is a seemingly good idea that virtually always leads to terrible implementations admitted to be a bad idea?
A good idea that
always leads to terrible implementation is a bad idea insofar as that an integral part of any idea is its implementability; if something cannot be implemented, then it has no real use.
The problem with this argument is that there is a vast, vast chasm between something virtually always having lead to bad implementations in a finite (and particularly small) number of attempts at implementation and one virtually always leading to bad implementations by something intrinsic to it. Clearly, the reform was the first, but I do not believe it was the latter. Allow me to give several reasons why.
First, there exists a rather clear practical example of such liturgical changes
not leading to the sorts of problems we saw in the Latin Church, and that is the Anglican church. When things such as the vernacular were first brought into use in the Anglican church centuries ago, their service remained extremely beautiful and reverential. Of course there were other problems, such as their elimination of the idea of sacrifice from their liturgy, and of course their being separated from Rome. However, both of those are somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether engaging the people in a more active way in the liturgy will by its nature lead to abuses. It is highly doubtful that the mere inclusion of words signifying sacrifice would have changed all of this. The Anglican church today is still an example, for while offshoots such as the Episcopalians in the US have had, dare it be said, even more outrageous examples of irreverance than in the Catholic Mass, the Anglican communion in Britain has maintained something quite nice.
What all of this tells us is that it is not the vernacular, responses on the part of the people, etc., that are the problem, but rather external factors such as the culture into which the liturgy is introduced.
Secondly, Pope Benedict believes the implementation to be correctable, and has written about it in the past.
Third, there has been no real attempt to correct the implementation, or to put it better, no completed attempt. John Paul II tried to begin such a thing, but he did it without fire and brimstone, not forcing it upon the Church but attempting to lead them. Benedict has taken a similar approach. In other words, they have not simply issued a decree which in strong language demands certain practices cease, for that may well do more harm than good, but rather, the effort is to piece by piece - or brick by brick, as Fr. Z would say - bring things aright. And, let it not be forgotten that a
major part of that is to correct the orthodoxy and faith of the people itself, so that they will be open to and desire the liturgy restored as it ought to be.
Fourth is a point which follows from this statement about correcting the faithful’s orthodoxy: I firmly believe that, apart from the reform, similar abuses to which we have seen would have occurred under the 1962 Missal. That was the way the world was going, and it was
this that needed correction more than anything. There were already a great number of dissident priests and bishops in the Church in the 50s and 60s, and these persons would have had their influence one way or the other, leading to perhaps even more egrigious results given the exact nature of the Pian Missal. Everything I know about the culture of the faithful of the Church in the time immediately preceding, during, and following the Council indicates this to be true.
Context. Context. Context…
Again, I point to Anglicanism as a counterexample to your guarantee. So far as the rest of the point is concerned, it is certainly a good point as regards the merits of the practice at its origin. However, by the 1960s, certainly this was not a limitation, and at this point I believe the practice of having the acolyte speak for the people was a limitation, certainly to the ontological reality of their confessing of their sins and the like, and to other things as well. Shortly put, at a time when people
could read, and when people
could memorize and repeat certain responses with understanding, there is no reason to have it done for them, and doing so only detracts from the meaning and effect of the Mass. In fact, even if we do not consider the vernacular this is true. Pius XII, for example, ordered that the the bishops see to it that all the world’s faithful learn to sing “at least” a given set of Gregorian chants in Latin, including certain settings of the Gloria and the Sanctus. He did not consider there to be any obstacles to people offering some of the prayers themselves, considered it an imperitive thing to do, and considered the people quite capable of learning chant and Latin.
So far as the vernacular is concerned, the problem is not in its nature - for Latin was instituted in the first place precisely because it was the vernacular of most people in the Church, and that went well for centuries until other languages outmoded it in general use (again, in a different
culture, which is the real issue here) - but in the particular place and time and the particular way it was implemented. This could easily be corrected by means of things such as
Litugircam Authenticam, and we are seeing that it is. The process is simply slow, in order not to push people out of the Church by this but to draw them along into the proper manner of celebration.
