“Would anyone care to comment on this extraordinary accusation?”

Of course the Roman Rite has known many changes — even between Trent and Vatican II. Note that the change of liturgical language from Greek to Latin in the 4th century was itself a great change.

I am curious what others here think of my other thought in regards to the old mass not being abrogated. As I said above, the language that accompanied the promulgation of the OF would seem to indicate that the old Mass was not meant to remain in use, yet the subsequent actions of Paul VI and future Popes have preserved the old rite and allowed for its continued use. It would seem that there has never been a time since the promulgation of the OF that the now-EF was totally suppressed. Can something be abrogated, yet still allowed?

First of all, the resulting text that came from the reform of the Missal was the Roman Rite, not something “different.” Second, Paul VI had the mandate to do what was done, and he got it from the Council. He authorized the reform with full knowledge of what was in it. He did it in obedience to the Council’s wishes, not against them.

You may have read the whole of SC, but the assumption that the Council fathers wanted and authorized only something that was very similar to the old liturgy is an assumption on your part, and it is false. SC does ask for a reform of the whole liturgy, not just some tinkering. The Mass, the sacraments, the whole thing. If what they wanted is the sort of minor adjustments that the Pope himself could do, and did do, in years past (as Pius XII and John XXIII did, etc.) they did not need an ecumenical council to enact it. If what they wanted was the 1962 Missal, they already had it. What were they asking for, if not a new Missal, new ritual, etc.? You say “let’s be honest” and yet the facts are squarely against your interpretation of the situation. Yes, let’s be honest. By all means.

Perhaps some well-meaning Catholics watch too much tv: looking for gotcha! moments in the documents, rather than read them in a logical, if not a Roman way. Maybe said Catholics have some of their number in curial hallways, too.

I was in grade school for most of the 70s. My beliefs about Vatican II, and the legitimacy of Paul VI’s reform, come from my more recent study. I’m sorry that I was too zealous in defending the Pope.
awr

I’m always amazed that people making the most noise about “the reformed liturgy didn’t follow the intent of V2″ have no problem with the Holy See taking over translation, though V2 says explicitly that this is the role of bishops within a territory, not the Vatican. If these people really believed we should follow the letter of V2, they would be crying bloody murder at the illegitimacy of the upcoming missal. That they aren’t is a good illustration of their selective reading of V2.

My point isn’t that the upcoming missal is illegitimate. I don’t say that. My point is consistency in interpretation.
awr

So it really does look like, according to the texts, that the old Mass was not to remain in use, but that doesn’t seem to be what the actions from 1970 onward have indicated.

As for the Second Vatican Council not abrogating the old Mass because it had delegated that task to another group – I think we always need to look at what that group did in relation to what Vatican II specifically wanted and be honest about how faithful it was or was not to the aims of the council. The Council, from what I can tell, certainly wanted to reform the Mass then *currently in use*, rather than to displace it with something very different (even going so far as to caution against drastic changes). While there was certainly the authority after the council to create a “new” missal, it’s difficult to square that with what the council seemed to want when looking at the documents approved by the bishops (which always seemed surprisingly conservative to me).