The true liturgical movement (a necessary distinction given the ubiquitous misrepresentations the Council's renewal), meaning the one of Gueranger and Pius X, was done to favour authenticity in prayer by priests and faithful. It was done for souls to be immersed in the Holy Liturgy, truly praying with the Church so that this would give birth to a more authentic, intelligent Christian life. Instead in the liturgical movement there was an operation of betrayal, carried out by those who thought that facilitating was the equivalent of aiding prayer: it was not to be, as anyone with eyes can see the disaster… Christians rarely know how to pray nowadays. (If we keep in mind that the Liturgy is Jesus Christ acting and praying, i.e., something into which we enter, and our response is primarily one of adoration of God and receptivity to His Presence (in Word and Sacrament), we will probably be more inclined to "worship in spirit and in truth" and be less inclined to engage in false worship, e.g., idolatry.)There is nothing external that can substitute our conversion to sincere personal devotion, to an authentic love for Christ. Our conversion, however, worked through grace, will spring from the prayer of the Church which Tradition has given us and which is the prayer of Christ Himself.So it is necessary also for us that:1) there is a return to correct liturgy according to tradition, so that the treasure which is “prayed revelation” (an extraordinarily beautiful phrase!!!) is not lost;2) that priests and the faithful motivated intelligently, become authentic missionaries and teachers of prayer according to the heart of the Church. If the second point did not apply to us then we would fall into the same tragic error of the Council reformers who believed that it was enough to go back to something exterior (perhaps even the Old Mass) for life to be revived. (Because the Sacraments are "visible signs of invisible grace", and they actually convey (impart) what they signify (ex opere operato vs ex opere operantis), it may be too strong or even inaccurate to employ the phrase "tragic error", for to do so introduces an unnecessary dichotomy, and from that dichotomy could be construed the idea that the efficacy of the Liturgy depends more on our inner disposition than on the content (i.e., the action of Christ Himself) of the Liturgy. We must have the content and pattern of the Liturgy established by Christ. The Church prays as she believes, and believes as she prays—lex orandi, lex credendi. The Christ-revealed content comes first because revelation conditions our inner disposition and frames our response. The external form of the ritual must conform to Apostolic Tradition, the body of revealed Truth captured in the oral Tradition and the written Tradition, i.e., Holy Scripture. Recall that the Liturgy came before what we now call the New Testament scriptures. The Liturgy was/is the repository of Tradition and measure of what belonged in the collection we now call the Bible. The writings used in the Liturgy determined in large pat which books were included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. The Liturgy contains both aspects or pillars of the Apostolic Tradition. That said, we will certainly participate more fully in Christ's action and be docile to God's grace if our inner disposition or understanding, that conversion worked through grace that was spoken of above, is oriented to (receptive toward, accepting of) the action/prayer of Christ.)May Our Lady assist us in being faithful to our task.
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15). Guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith (1 Tim. 6:21-22).