I note in Paragraph 62 of "Mediator Dei", Pope Pius XII states:

Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish

the altar restored to its primitive tableform;

were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments;

were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches;

were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings;

and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Question: It seems that Pope Pius XII anticipated some of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II and rejected them in advance.

In Paragraph 61, Pius XII states:

The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately.

The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity.

The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

And in Paragraph 62 he states:

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion.

But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device.

Question: In referring to "recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit" wasn't Pius XII referring to official Roman Rite in use in 1947 when this encyclical was written (i.e., the pre-Vatican II Roman Rite recently restored to usage by Benedict XVI)?

What people was Pius XII referring to when he wrote: "But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity"?

It would appear obvious that there was considerable controversy regarding the Roman Liturgy in 1947 for Pope Pius XII to have addressed these issues? On the basis of what was written in "Mediator Dei", would Pius XII have taken issue with certain Vatican II liturgical reforms?

Andrew:

In referring to "recent liturgical rites..." wasn't Pius XII referring to official Roman Rite in use in 1947 when this encyclical was written...?

Most likely. He is, at the very least, referring to the organic development of particular rites from their most primitive forms; organic because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which breathes into the living organism of the Mystical Body of Christ. This is in contrast, of course, to mechanical appendages, plastic surgery, etc. (Not to demean those who are crippled or disfigured, I'm just trying to get my analogy across.)

What people was Pius XII referring to when he wrote: "But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity"? It would appear obvious that there was considerable controversy regarding the Roman Liturgy in 1947 for Pope Pius XII to have addressed these issues?

From what I've heard (and read in his encyclical), the antiquarian tendency was already festering in the Church during his papacy; even a couple centuries before him, the (heretical) Pistoian reformation sought to deconstruct the sacrificial and liturgical aspects of the Church. It's a bit frightening that many of the proposed "reforms" from that era were embodied in the post-Vatican II reform.

On the basis of what was written in "Mediator Dei", would Pius XII have taken issue with certain Vatican II liturgical reforms?

Here, I would ask that you distinguish between the liturgical reform as mandated by Vatican II (in Sacrosanctum Concilium)... and the liturgical reform as carried out by the Consilium after the publication of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. You know, as well as I do, that they are not identical.

Andrew:

Is it possible that the proponents of "reduc[ing] everything to antiquity by every possible device" had the upper hand at the time of Vatican II?

It doesn't take a mathematical prodigy to deduce, from the degree of liturgical "reform" that occurred outside the bounds of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, that something has gone awry. It is clear that a (large) group of apparently influential bishops applied an anti-traditional spin to Sacrosanctum Concilium and had their way with the Divine Liturgy of the Church. Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI, for the liberation of the Traditional Latin Mass, the Extraordinary Form of the one Roman Rite. May God raise up faithful leaders in His Church to help restore the organic development of our worship.

Andrew: I believe the Holy Father affirmed the availability of the TLM for at least two reasons: a) the "gravitational pull" it will exert on the Ordinary Form (which is something Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has mentioned repeatedly) thereby leading to celebrations of the Ordinary Form that are more traditional in nature, and b) because the reforms mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium are to operate on the TLM, and we need a living celebration of Mass in that form to be able to organically develop it according to the mandates of the reform.

Andrew - the 1969 liturgy was hardly what one would call an "organic development". At the very least, Pope Benedict XVI has referred to it as a fabrication and a banal on-the-spot product. It has defects for sure. But the 1962 Missal was (and still is) in need of reform. The previous indults were for various reasons; there are no indults in effect anymore though. Read the letter that accompanied Summorum Pontificum to hear, from the Pope's own hand, his reasons for his letter affirming the availability of the 1962 form of Mass.

The people who strongly prefer the Extraordinary Form to the Ordinary Form -- and are obedient to the Magisterium of the Church -- are not opposed to the liturgical reforms prescribed by Vatican II, but rather to the way in which the Consilium carried out the reforms... going far beyond the prescriptions of the Council!

Andrew - I am speaking specifically of the reforms found in nn. 50-58. The 1965 liturgy could be seen as one possible (and partial) implementation of those reforms, but perhaps not the ideal. In "Reform of the Reform?", a book by Fr. Thomas Kocik, there is, in one of the appendices, a proposed application of those reforms to the 1962 liturgy.

Andrew - I am intelligent enough to recognize a question (by a question mark), so you needn't preface yours with "Question:".

The 1962 Missal is in need of reform in the ways described by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

As for the reversion to the 1962 Missal rather than any subsequent revision, I think (as Fr. Z does) that it is an attempt to re-examine the liturgy of the time and re-apply the appropriate, actual reforms; and perhaps a subtle admission that even the 1965 liturgy missed the mark as far as keeping tightly to the reform called for by Vatican II. In other words, in order to properly carry out the liturgical reform, in an organic process that is sensitive to tradition, the last form of the organic liturgy needed to be made available again.

It is certainly not a gesture that says "Vatican II was wrong" (or something along those lines), but rather "the implementation of Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy has gone awry for the last 40 years and we need a fresh traditional perspective".

Not a failure, per se, but not at all what was intended. It was not what was called for; perhaps, in another time and place (some people might add: "and religion") it would be appropriate, but it introduced flaws where it was meant to restore continuity in certain elements (the "general intercessions", for example).

It is true that the reforms enacted after Vatican II were not "organic" in nature, but "artificial". Instead of building from tradition, in many places the liturgy was treated as a tabula rasa. The reforms called could have been organically incorporated, but they were not. I am curious why the reforms which occurred in the decade before Vatican II are looked at in so favorable a light, though. The washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, for instance, was not restored to its traditional form and purpose.

I'm aware of the character of certain participants in Vatican II, and it is a shame that their former censure did not silence them in such an important matter.