Vatican II mandated (SC 50) that liturgical "elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are to be restored (restituantur) to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers."
S Paul VI in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum changed restituantur to restituuntur ("are being restored"), thus claiming to be fulfilling that Conciliar mandate. He gave two or three examples, again taken from the Conciliar Decree, of such 'restorations'.
That pope did not, clearly, regard the changes which had occurred in the liturgy over the centuries as being irreversible. He himself confidently, even with pride, reversed some of them. And the Council, he claimed, had ordered this policy of reversal, of historical recovery.
PF, on the other hand, rigidly observed in 2017 (NCR August 24) "We can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reforms are irreversible".
Yet, despite this assertion of rigidity, in his Address to the Curia, he has recently asserted " ... there is a need to be wary of rigidity. A rigidity born of fear of change, which ends up erecting fences and obstacles on the terrain of the common good, turning it into a minefield of incomprehension and hatred. Let us always remember that behind every form of rigidity lies some form of imbalance [squilibrio*]. Rigidity and imbalance [squilibro*] feed one another in a vicious circle. And today this temptation to rigidity has become very real".
So who is to be believed? The Ecumenical Council and the Pontiff who said that the Church can and should reach back into the past and recover things which have been lost ...
... or the pope who, because of his fear of change, builds a Berlin Wall, makes a 'minefield' (campo minato), to prevent any brave souls from venturing out to recover what has been lost?
And which of these two Bergoglios is to be taken seriously: the 'unbalanced, deranged' (vide squilibrio) Bergoglio who with formidable rigidita ("affirm; certainty; magisterial; authority; irreversible") upholds the post-conciliar liturgical distortions ...
... or the Bergoglio who incessantly warns the rest of us against Rigidity?
* I have only the merest smattering of Italian; can somebody explain to me what the difference is between squilibrio and squilibro in the Italian text of this address? And ... I presume the -libr- comes from the Latin root, but where etymologically does the squi- come from?