This question was asked:
Why is it impermissible for one to adhere to the TLM and reject NOM on doctrinal grounds? I may not agree with you on the deficiency thing completely or what classifies as an abuse, but I do agree that the TLM (regardless of my preference) leads the faithful to be a better understanding of God and the Mass. Sacrifice vs meal thing. I read through most of the Ottaviani Intervention last night. (Thank Nihil for referencing that- very interesting read.) I found myself agreeing with a lot of it. Not that I am saying what I agree with makes something true, but my point is I am not doing anything wrong by believing the TLM maybe should be the preferred Mass.
The reason is that the idea of doctrine has changed, with regard to the Mass.
Here is what I mean. In 1948, Fr. Bugnini became the de facto leader of the Liturgical Movement. It was at this time there was a shift in understanding liturgical theology. Actually, there is a major move that is made and it will start to clear up some lingering issues and prolly bring out some more questions.
Bugnini and his inner circle, two of which were Fr. Josef Jungmann and Fr. Boyer of France made a striking move between 1948-50. What they did was to stop focusing on the theological aspects of the Mass and to start on the rubrical. So, in essence, from about 1948-1960, there was very little (if not, no) theological teaching on the Mass. The teaching on the Mass became almost exclusively rubrical...and it was strict.
In and of itself that is not a bad thing, because strict rubrics do lead one to a clear doctrinal understanding of the Mass, but there was no doctrinal (theological) teaching going on. By doing this, priests, bishops, and the faithful forgot the theology of the Mass. Let's not forget, during the 50s one of the major "issues" was that the "why" of the Mass wasn't there. That it was simply a rubrical machine going through the motions and nobody knew why the Mass was the way it was any longer.
This was done by design. It will bear itself out shortly.
By stopping the theological explanations, the Consilium led by Fr. Bugnini started to formulate the re-teaching of liturgical theology. Since it had been 12 years or so since any real theological materials had been advanced and the older Liturgical theological ideas had been utterly ignored, in favor of rubrics only; it only made sense that to re-teach theology, that it should be done in their image and likeness. So, there is a parenthetical shift in the theological understanding of the Mass. This shift is borne out in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Priest as presider, not celebrant.
Mass as a meal and not a sacrifice
The Consecration becomes an institution narrative (this is a heresy, btw)
The priesthood of the laity becomes the major focus
The priest's role in the Mass is vastly reduced, if not eliminated in places of the liturgical action.
By doing this, the introduction of the New Mass is easily done. The rubrics are easy to change, because we had become slaves to them over the last 12 years. So, they were accepted without any real resistance. But the real damage came in the doctrinal shift.
That shift is this.
The faithful celebrate the Mass and the priest presides over the celebration of the Mass. This has become so ingrained that most Catholics today don't even think about it. She who asked the question even said it herself when she made this statement:
You are willing to say Bishop Finn, Archbishop Naumann, Archbishop Dolan, (only mention them because I've assisted at Masses that they presided at), the Holy Father, many priests who follow the rubrics faithfully (yes they do exist) and even celebrate the TLM are all committed a liturgical abuse.
So the action of a priest is different in the Novus Ordo, than it is in the TLM. So too is the theology.
I'll make one more point for now....go back and take a quick parsing of the GIRM and of Sacrosanctum Concilium...you will also see a bit of "tom-foolery" going on, which pits Catholic v. Catholic. (This, btw is a trap I've fallen into and I apologize...my focus is now clearer and I will make it known going forward.)
When you take a look, the documents specifically make it so that both the conservative and the liberal are correct in their interpretation of the document. We've been arguing over ad orientem, correct? Well, from your point of view, you're right, based on what is written. But so am I, based upon the very same thing.
How about the use of Latin? Sacrosanctum Concilium says that the Latin language is to be preserved and that all are to know the responses, but in the very same paragraph it says that "wider use of the vernacular" can be enacted. If a liberal gets a hold of that (which they did, btw), wider use can mean anyplace a Latin word is used. And that is precisely what happens. So, who is right? The liberal or the conservative? The answer, both. But now the theology doesn't support the conservative, it has been re-imagined into a liberal bias and so it is easier for the liberal to justify.
You asked at one point if all of this was a conspiracy? The answer is; Yes it was. Ottaviani caught it and spoke up. It was leaked a month early (it was supposed to go the Pope first, but the media got it) and all of the bishops who were going to affix their name to it backed off, except one. Cardinal Bacci. So, now the credibility was gone.
As a DIRECT response to this, we see an amazing thing happen. There appears in the 1970 Sacramentary, a forward, which refutes the Ottaviani Intervention, almost word for word. I wonder why? A new theology, one not based upon tradition, but rather on innovation. And it has been imposed.
Benedict is trying to undo some of it, but it is like trying to get a knot out of a chain. And the biggest problem is this...he has loosened the TLM, which is a good thing...but the liturgical theology which is being taught doesn't line up. It literally is putting a square peg in a round hole (look at your own language). So, how effective can the TLM be? At most all that can happen is a wave of nostalgia....also, you see that those who understand and apply the proper liturgical theology (which the Church taught for 1600 years) doesn't line up with the modern understanding of liturgical theology....which is why you and I bump heads on it.
So, back to my original point. Is the Novus Ordo deficient? Yes. Why? Well, the argument is pretty compelling, isn't it? Relativism and subjectivity have been introduced into doctrinal theology with regard to the liturgy. Those are the two main tools of Modernism. Read Pope St. Pius X's document on Modernism. He says as much. A both/and and this-or-that theology cannot work in the Church.
I will continue to develop this idea, but a clearer path is now showing itself. Again, I'm not questioning the validity, I am questioning the motive behind the parenthetical shift in theology.