Msgr. Charles Pope's article If the Second Vatican Council Had Never Happened, Would We Still Have a New Mass? Quite Possibly has generated a lot of hell on traditionalist blogs. Louie Verrecchio has given the standard FSSPX/FSSP type response here, which does seem to lose sight of the greater picture and which separates the "liturgy" and the Mass (Holy Week, the Office etc being things of different importance from the grace machine that is the Mass). A more thoughtful reply came from the Maestro here. Commentators may be creating a false dichotomy between the Council and the liturgical overhaul. That the Council or evil Bunigni caused the Pauline Mass is a bit silly. They were the immediate causes, but hardly the prime cause. The Council and the reformed liturgy rather originated from the same genus of reform which had been lurking in the Vatican for some time. Dislike the Liturgia Horarum? The 1911 Commission wanted to turn the Office into, essentially, that and would have if not for the War to End All Wars. Discipline and the Vatican's politics underwent a quiet revolution from the start of the 20th century until 1958, when John XXIII ascended the Petrine chair. Those paying attention were less surprised when the new liturgy appeared in the 1960s. The person most discombobulated was the mother who attended a low Mass Sunday morning with her family, the young schoolboy in the diocesan pre-seminary, the elderly person whose daily Mass saw them through a life of work. In short, normal people unconcerned with Roman politics. We will cover the political origins of the reform movement in another article I have planned as a follow up to The Pre-Conciliar Church, but for now it suffices to say that the Council did not cause the new liturgy nor was a new liturgy inevitable on its own. They were two branches shooting from one trunk.