Why did Vatican II change the Mass?

[Wesley7]

Why did Vatican II change the Mass?

More likely, it was the Roman Church liturgical response in that era/period.

Pope Pius XI was Pope for 40 years. {}

 

[YoungTradCath]

More likely, it was the Roman Church liturgical response in that era/period.

Pope Pius XI was Pope for 40 years. {}
The mass was changed after Vatican II ended, and was done on the desks of the Consilium, which was a separate group of men from those who took part in Vatican II. The Consilium used (maybe) Sacrosanctum Concilium as a base, and took it from there. They were a much smaller group than Vatican II, which was all of the bishops of the entire world.

Pius XI reigned for 17 years. Pius IX reigned for 32 years, the longest-reigning elected pope. I don’t think even Peter reigned for 40 years.

 

[FAB]

Actually some of us neanderthals are well aware of the history of the Mass and of the Church. And amazingly enough some of us actually feel that the reforms did not reflect the will of the council or even agree with what the council specified

Example from THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY

                  Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December, 1963    
  
54.   A  suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular in  Masses which   are celebrated with the people,  especially in the  readings   and  "the  common  prayer,"   and  also,   as  local conditions  may     warrant,   in those parts which pertain to the people,  according to     the rules laid down in Article 36 of this Constitution. 
  **Nevertheless   care  must be taken to ensure that the  faithful  may   also   be  able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of  the  Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

**
Wherever a more extended use of the vernacular in the Mass seems
desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this
Constitution is to be observed.
article 40 states:
40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. For this reason:
(1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Article 22:2, must in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and cultures of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are considered useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Holy See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
(2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection necessary, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suitable for the purpose.
(3) Because liturgical laws usually involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, **especially in mission lands, **men who are experts in the matters in question must be employed to formulate them.
or this for example
116. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30

Very hard to see how that squares up with what we actually got in practice .

As I said, the reforms and Liturgical renewal in some cases DO NOT appear to reflect the will of the council.

  _______________________________________________________

I would disagree. The liturgy of the mass we celebrate in the Ordinary Form reflects all of these elements.
As a previous poster expressed, there is a great deal of history behind the change and they had been in the works of the Church for 100 years before the Second Vatican Council. The council brought all those issues to a head and to the resolution that we have in our liturgy today.