Michael Davies innrømmer (på s 91 i sin bok Pope Paul’s New Mass) at hans selv fullt ut var med på liturgiforandringene i starten:
… I recollect, to my shame, travelling to another parish for Mass on these early Sundays because in my retrograde parish there was no vernacular, no offertory procession, and no Mass facing the people. My parish priest had failed to «keep up with the times» and, I felt, keeping up with the times was a top priority. There is nothing surprising about my attitude. My only source of information was the Catholic press and the Catholic press was united in extolling the merits of the innovations. …
Men så oppdagen han og mange andre at fruktene av den nye liturgien ikke var så positive som det ble påstått (s 92):
… Opposition to the reforms began to arise when it became obvious that the pastoral benefits which had been confidently prophesied, did not materialize. The police did not need to be called to Catholic churches each Sunday to hold back the hordes of lapsed Catholics whose faith had been rekindled at the prospect of saying the Confiteor in English. The initial interest, which anything new is bound to evoke, soon began to wear off. English in the liturgy became a matter of routine and the liturgy began to appear banal. it eventually became clear to me that the changes had been detrimental.
One day at school I asked my eleven-year-old pupils to write an essay on the changes in the Mass, without indicating my own preference in any way. Almost all preferred the Latin Mass-and gave sound reasons for their preference. I then joined the Latin Mass Society. …
Han fortsetter så med å si at det først og fremst var estetiske grunner til at mange ikke likte det nye (s 92-93):
… I am sure that like most of those joining at the time this was for aesthetic reasons. The innovations were affecting the ethos of our Mass. We did not see them as undermining Catholic Eucharistic teaching.
Then, suspect translations began to appear. This inuneditely added a doctrinal dimension to the reform. The direction in which those who had taken control of the implementation of the reform wished the liturgy to move was made clear. There was to be a playing down of all those aspects of the Mass which were unacceptable to Protestants. Prayers referring to the Real Presence or sacrifice would be considerably toned down-this was made particularly clear with the publication of the ICEL translation of the Canon in 1967. …
Det siste her et punkt der jeg ikke kan følge Davies’ argumenter særlig langt. For ingen protestanter (det er anglikanere og lutheranere man i praksis tenker på) verker innførte nytt og moderne språk i sine gudstjenester eller rev ned de gamle alterne og prekestolene på den tid. De (anglikanerne mest) har tvert i mot holdt fast på sine gamle høyaltere og sitt høytidelige engelsk fram til vår tid.
Det er korrekt at protestanter ikke likte at vi katolikker regner messen som et offer av, men likevel ser jeg på den katolske liturgiske revolusjonen rundt 1970 som et resultat av vår egen liturgiske bevegelse fra 30-40-50-tallet. Forandringene løp løpsk uten tvil, og hvorfor det ble slik, vet jeg ikke – protestantiske kirkes liturgi løp på ingen måte løpsk disse åra.