His Emminence

Though at least one frater of mine finds him to be rather liberal (?), I must reflect on my respect for His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I have just finished reading Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 (of course by His Emminence) and am duly impressed by his life. Retaining humility, he details his life as an academic and his rise to the episcopacy. Two days after finishing the work I was gifted a copy of His Holiness' autobiographical account of his own episcopacy, Rise, Let us be on our way, which takes up where Gift and Mystery -- I am only 60 pages or so into it, and both books have taught me much about the pursuit of holiness and hearkening to the will of God. But back to Milestones -- His Emminence Cardinal Ratzinger comments extensively on the new liturgy, and important parts of his commments are copied for you here:

The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops oevr the course of centuries. Many of his successors had likewise reworked the missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself. There is only the reowrking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical "reforms". It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. The split in the Church occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most incisive manifestation in the changes of the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic, and what was no longer Catholic. (146-7)

It was reasonable and right of the council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before ... But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built. (148)

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy. (148)

This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council. (149)

You really do need to read the whole section (146-9), if not the whole book. Suffice it to say, the development of the Novus Ordo Missae was by no means true to the tradition of liturgical reform and evolution that had been precedent since the Lord's Supper.