One of the central failures of the liturgical reform of the 1960s was not change itself, but the absence of explanation.
Vatican II clearly called for a reform of the liturgy. That is not in dispute. Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly authorized revision of the rites, simplification, and a greater intelligibility for the faithful.[i] What remains largely unexplained is why the reform took the particular shape it did, especially when the interim Missal of 1965 already implemented many conciliar directives.
The Council itself imposed limits. It insisted that rites “be distinguished by a noble simplicity,” and that nothing new be introduced “unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires it.”[ii] Reform was to proceed organically from existing forms, not through wholesale reconstruction.[iii] Yet the most visible changes affecting the faithful went far beyond modest simplification.
The problem is not simply that things changed. It is that the Church rarely explained why particular changes were better.
(more…)








