In his book Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1998), then-Cardinal Ratzinger reflects on the atmosphere surrounding discussion of the sacred liturgy during Vatican Council II, and the subsequent developments which distorted the Council Fathers' intentions. Of particular note is that this discussion on the liturgy was viewed primarily as a test case for the methodology of addressing other, more pressing theological matters, especially those concerning the nature of divine revelation. The below excerpt is taken from pages 121-124.

The first question was what the Council should begin with, what its proximate task ought to be. The Pope had given only a very wide-ranging description of his purpose in calling a council, and this left the Fathers with an almost unlimited freedom to give things concrete shape. The Pope's view basically amounted to this: The faith, while remaining the same in its contents, was to be proclaimed to our era in a new way, and, after a period of demarcations and defensive maneuvers, we were now no longer to condemn but to apply the "medicine of mercy". There was implicit agreement that the Church herself should be the main theme of the gathering, which would thus take up again and conclude the work of the First Vatican Council, which had been prematurely interrupted in 1870 by the Franco-Prussian War. Cardinals Montini and Suenens presented plans for a vast theological outline of the work of the Council, in which the theme of the Church was to be divided into the two questions "the interior life of the Church" and "the Church vis-à-vis the world". This second part of the theme would permit the great questions of the present to come to the fore under the perspective of the relationship between Church and "world".

The reform of the liturgy in the spirit of the liturgical movement was not a priority for the majority of the Fathers, and for many not even a consideration. Thus, for example, in his outline of themes after the beginning of the Council, Cardinal Montini -- who as Paul VI would be the real pope of the Council -- said quite clearly that he did not see the reform of the liturgy as a substantial task in the Council. The liturgy and its reform had, since the end of World War I, become a pressing question only in France and Germany, and indeed above all from the perspective of the purest possible restoration of the ancient Roman liturgy, to which belonged the active involvement of the people in the liturgical event. These two countries, which at that time enjoyed theological leadership in the Church (and we must of course add Belgium and the Netherlands), had during the preparation phase succeeded in putting through a schema on the sacred liturgy, which quite naturally found its place in the general theme of the Church. The fact that this text became the first subject for the Council's discussions really had nothing to do with the majority of the Fathers having an intense interest in the liturgical question. Quite simply, no great disagreements were expected in this area, and the undertaking was viewed as a kind of practical exercise to learn and test the method of conciliar work. It would not have occurred to any of the Fathers to see in this text a "revolution" signifying the "end of the Middle Ages", as some theologians felt they should interpret it subsequently. The work was seen as a continuation of the reforms introduced by Pius X and carried on carefully but resolutely by Pius XII. General expressions such as "the liturgical books should be revised as soon as possible" (no. 25) were understood in this sense: as the uninterrupted continuation of that development which had always been there and which, since Popes Pius X and Pius XII, had received a definite profile from the rediscovery of the classical Roman liturgical traditions, which was, of course, to overcome certain tendencies of Baroque liturgy and nineteenth-century devotional piety and to promote a new humble and sober centering of the authentic mystery of Christ's presence in his Church. In this context it is not surprising that the "model Mass" now proposed, which was supposed to (and in fact did) take the place of the traditional Ordo missae, was in 1967 rejected by the majority of the Fathers who had been called together to a special synod on the matter. Some publications now tell us that some liturgists (or perhaps many?) who were working as advisers had had more far-reaching intentions from the outset. Their wishes would surely not have received the approval of the Fathers. Nor were such wishes expressed in any way in the text of the Council, although one can subsequently read them into some general statements.

The debate on the liturgy had taken place calmly and without serious tension. . . .