Here's the problem with your argument as I see it.
You're claiming MD allows reintroduction of things from the past. Sure, but they are qualified. Clearly, by the examples, things that were suppressed should not be brought back. Yet, the NO did exactly that, including things PXII said explicitly no to. Further, the way things are brought in from the past in MD is through organic changes; again, the NO did the exact opposite.
If we want further evidence of P12's intent, we can look at his encylical on sacred music:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12music.htmThere is no way any of the stuff you are trying to justify would fly with him. We have it in his own words what he meant by liturgical change, and examples of changes that he would find acceptable and not acceptable. The NO changes fall squarely under "not acceptable". A different Pope found them acceptable and even good.
So, while you may come up with an argument as to how the NO is "traditional" or how the changes in it are acceptable or even good in the light of tradition, you're not going to do it with Mediator Dei; you may be able to with Paul VI's addresses and encyclicals, but unless you want to engage in severe mental gymnastics, ones that it is difficult for me to believe you think will come to a consensus with your argument if they are analyzed in context, you're not going to be able to reconcile it.
As I understand
MD, the specific examples he gave of illicit liturgical changes were to illustrate people acting without proper authority. I thought his point was papal authority over sacred liturgy, not that any of these practices were intrinsically wrong. (He said this explicitly in the case of use of vernacular.) I can't see him limiting what any future pope might do, since his position is that each pope must determine how liturgy will meet the circumstances of his time.
I think that
MD establishes general principles about changing liturgy rather than showing any specific practices are wrong. The main principle is papal authority over liturgy, limited by preserving the integrity of the faith. A minor point, but one I thought relevant to our discussion, is that continuous development of liturgical tradition is not necessary.
I think that you're reading of MD is forced. You can repeat over and over that's what it's about, but when he condemns people for "straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform", for example, and you're saying that at the same time he's saying it's OK for the NO to change the wall altar to the tableform, your logic has gone out the window, and you're engaging in verbal gymnastics and grasping at straws.
Look, if you want to believe that, fine, then defend it by showing that P12 wouldn't be bothered by these things. I can show where he says specific things are not OK at all. Show where he says they are OK. Because if he thought any Pope could do whatever they wanted and it would be fine, he wouldn't be putting restrictions down, would he? He would just say: "Whatever the Pope says must be fine" But that's not what he said at all.
But if you think this discussion about MD will bear fruit, by all means, let's continue it. Don't forget, though, you are still attempting to show the NO is "traditional" in some sense and I am attempting to show the opposite. That discussion is more interesting to me by far.
I think we have been talking about different senses of being traditional. You are pointing to specific instances of changes from the past and focusing on details. In your approach, even changing a couple of words is a break with tradition. I am thinking about a more general sense of tradition and looking at the big picture. For me, retaining the general structure and basic prayers is a connection to tradition. I tend to be a big picture sort of person and am especially inclined to this perspective in this case because of my experiences as a Fundamentalist. I have seen what rejection of tradition in general looks like so I am very aware that this did not happen in the NO. I do concede that at the level of detail there are many instances in which the NO does not retain tradition.
That's word gymnastics. Basically you're forcing the question: "How much lacking in tradition does something have to be before it's not traditional?"
But if you want to go to the big picture, let's go to the huge picture and include not only the Missal but the forms of the Sacraments, the Rite of Exorcism, Canon Law, etc. The problem with the big picture is the more we include, the fewer traditional practices exist.
Traditional means traditional. It means it was handed down. The NO was not handed down.
Here's a simplified picture:
The Last Supper
| \ \
| \ \
The primitive Latin Rite liturgies Eastern Rites Unorthodox Rites (Cathar, Gnostic, etc.)
|
|
The Council of Trent ==> Suppressed practices
|
|
The changes in the 1950s
|
|
The 1962 Missal
OK, let's look at the NO
The Last Supper
| \ \
| \ \
The primitive Latin Rite liturgies Eastern Rites Unorthodox Rites (Cathar, Gnostic, etc.)
| |
| |
The Council of Trent | ==> Suppressed Practices
/ snip for brevity / | |
| | |
The 1962 Missal | |
| | |
| | |
\ | /
The NOM
That picture is not perfect, but it is fairly accurate. The NOM is not what was handed down. It reached back on its own initiative, it resurrected suppressed practices, etc. What is consciously not handed down goes to tradition as much as what is handed down. P12 says as much:
From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting
the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof.
It's a Heinz 57 liturgy. If you call it traditional given what it is, then the word itself loses all sense and can mean anything. Maybe that's your goal, I don't know. If it's not, I don't understand how given the plain facts you can call it traditional or use MD to defend it.
