The modern "conservative" Catholic often does not think of the fact that the reformers in the so called "Reformation" (which was really a revolt, not a reformation) were mostly validly ordained Catholic priests and bishops. They were the real deal, had faculties and were in good standing for a long time before Rome intervened.
I will give you most of pg 30 and 31 of Mr. Davies first book on the Liturgical Revolution which lays this out clearly and exposes the mode of attack that the reformers quickly and smartly took:
Die Reformation en Deutschland. One of the most outstanding and perceptive contemporary champions of the Mass was the German theologian John Cochlaeus (1479-1552). He rightly pointed out that in attacking the Mass, Luther was attacking Christ Himself "since He is the true founder and perfecter of the Mass, the true High Priest of the Mass and also the One Who is sacrificed as all Christian teachers acknowledge. With equal accuracy he diagnosed the contradiction which lay at the heart of the heresiarch's claim to be "reformers." "They are justly deemed guilty of heresy who instead of seeking remedies for what is amiss, set themselves to abolish the very substance on account of abuse." He warned his fellow Catholic apologists not to concentrate their main efforts on defending the primacy of he pope, but on defending the Mass, a task which was far more vital, for "thereby Luther threatens to tear out the heart from the body of the Church."
The reformers themselves were bitterly divided concerning the doctrine of the Lord's supper, but they were united in a common detestation of the sacrificial interpretation which has always been taught in the Catholic Church. Luther was honest enough to admit the traditional nature of the teaching and support of "the Holy Fathers, so many authorities and so widespread a custom constantly observed throughout the world." His answer was ". . . reject them all rather then admit that the Mass is a work and a sacrifice . . . ".
Luther himself assessed the situation with perfect accuracy when he stated: "Once the Mass has been overthrown, I say we will have overthrown the whole of popdom."
Personal observation from blogger here: We are not talking about the revolutionaries eliminating the Mass... we're talking here about them setting out to alter the character and nature of that which the Mass transmits in the form of what it teaches and is.
The hatred of the Reformers for the Mass is best illustrated by reading their own words on the subject.
[END OF CH 5 EXCERPT]
You will have to get the book to read on from here in CH 5.
I'll leave that task to you dear readers. But I am reminded here of the words of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who died in Rome on 3 July 1982. For it is our own Catholic Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who is the principal architect of the liturgical reforms of the post Vatican II era. Please remember that the Vatican II documents on the Mass do not describe the new Mass... but rather are talking about the old Mass.
Here are the words of Archbishop Bugnini during those heady days following the Council:
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass,
L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who died in Rome on 3 July 1982, was described in an obituary in The Times as "one of the most unusual figures in the Vatican's diplomatic service." It would be more than euphemistic to describe the Archbishop's career as simply "unusual". There can be no doubt at all that the entire ethos of Catholicism within the Roman Rite has been changed profoundly by the liturgical revolution which has followed the Second Vatican Council.
As Father Kenneth Baker SJ remarked in his editorial in the February 1979 issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review: "We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels, but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately."
Keep in mind here: I am fully aware of the validity of the New Mass. I am fully aware of the popes having the right and the authority to change the Mass in exactly the same manner as the protestant reformers. But just because something can be done by legitimate authority does not mean it is necessarily a good thing. And questioning it does not mean one is questioning the fairly narrow definition of infallibility. We have no guarantee from Christ that the successors to the apostles will be impeccable.
And so now... in a day where Benedict has liberated that which was never abrogated (though many valid and licit Bishops at the time assured us otherwise)... we must ask ourselves... is the Tridentine Mass just like the option for the Spanish Mass or the Portuguese Mass, or the Mass in Creole... OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE TO IT?
Are the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine rite dynamically equivalent?
Make up your own mind on the matter... but it is, I assure you... no small thing.