For me, it’s very strange in the part when Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document on the liturgy of Vatican II, systematically states all the sacraments. Let us say the ritual of the sacrament after the nations should be reformed, and all the sacraments should be reformed. They do not say reformed, recognoscantur, in Latin, recognoscantur should be again reviewed or re-examined. It is not necessary that this expression should mean a completely new rite, but it also opens recognoscantur to be checked, reviewed, or re-examined. This expression is ambiguous. It’s open to different interpretations. It could mean only slight changes, or it could mean really making a new rite. Unfortunately, after the council, all the sacraments were systematically completely changed and rewritten.
The rituals, of course, kept the essential formulas of the sacraments, though not all. Even Pope Paul VI changed the formulas of some sacraments. The sacrament of episcopal ordination was changed. The formula of the sacrament of holy confirmation was changed. The form of the sacrament itself was changed. The form of the sacrament of penance, of confession, was changed. At least these sacraments were really changed in form. It is, it is orthodox and valid in form. Of course, the Church can express a form in different manners, but for example, the Confirmation form was taken from the Byzantine Church. I ask myself why we should take a form from the Byzantine Greek Church when we had our own millennia-old formula of Confirmation in the Latin Church.
The same goes for episcopal ordination, the sacrament of absolution in holy confession, and the sacrament of anointing of the sick, which was also changed completely, and a new formula was invented. It is valid. I repeat, it is valid. All the formulas are valid without doubt, but it is only a question of method and of the Catholic spirit. The Church never radically changed and invented new formulas; they were developed, received, and handed down. Therefore, as I repeat, the text of Vatican II opened the door, at least, to such changes. It should not have been done, it could not have been done this way, and it should not have been done. But I repeat, there are some formulas. When you read Sacrosanctum Concilium as an objective observer, you get the impression as if the Church says, “Oh, what we had until now was not so good. We have to change it simply.” But this is not good, because the Church could not have prayed officially for centuries, even for a millennium, in a defective or imperfect form. It is impossible. This transmits the impression that Vatican II was here to change and to show that what came before was defective, which cannot be. The Church was guided to more precise formulations, and this we had.