https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/04/return-to-form


The writer does not get it. He's right that we must build from the bottom on up, but that does not excuse superiors from carrying out their duty. Why can't we fight from both fronts?

I also noticed a passing over of the idea of the New Mass "enriching" the Traditional Mass. The same ridiculous terminology of "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" is used. They still do not see past the modernist thought of Benedict XVI.

Speaking of Benedict XVI, in my humble opinion, I think there was a push to have him resign, but I imagine it would have been done in a clever sort of way. The powers that be can get around thing through technicalities to get what they want without there having been actual pressure for the resignation, which would have been canonically illicit.

Kephapaulos - I read that article as well.  I was pleased to see the credit given to +Lefebvre.  But, I was disappointed with the solution he spoke of.  He basically said that the 1962 liturgy is going to be restored to the church solely by the laity.  But, that is just not realistic.  It is quite ridiculous really.  The realistic response is to acknowledge(which the author did briefly) that there was a liturgy sandwiched between the NO and the 1962.  And, it turns out that +Lefebvre used this liturgy in the early days.  It was the 1965 liturgy.  And, I see it as a golden bridge.  It is basically the 1962 liturgy with small amounts of its ends snipped off.  And, quite frankly, I think traditionalists would gladly give up their 1962 for the 1965 if it sent the NO to the eternal trash bin  But, there is much to be missed in the 1965 liturgy.  Not only are their some undesirable rubrics(female participation), but the introibo psalm is cut out, and I love that psalm.  I can do without the last gospel and leonine prayers. I would rather trade out the duplicate confiteors/prayers for inclusion of the introibo.  The modernist complaint that always comes to mind was the repetition and the Ite Missa est not really being the dismissal.  Maybe traditionalists should have accommodated those complaints.  Because, not only did we lose that duel, we lost the bigger battle.

I think that the solution lies in the sspx using their numbers and influence as bargaining power to get rid of the NO.  They should meet somewhere in an acceptable middle ground, which is actually a reality, so long as the sspx does not show its cards. I do not pray for a personal prelature.  Because, there is too great a difference between the two rites(as the author mentioned), and the NO is not good.

Prayerful - Perhaps I should not call the 1965 litrugy a golden bridge.  But, the reason I do is that in tradition, it is taboo for anyone other than the pope to alter the liturgy.  The coined and derogatory "liturgy of Econe" term is one that comes to mind.  So, trads pick a liturgical date and stick by it through thick and thin.  This is a limiting factor when it comes to considering solutions.  So, for this reason I see the 1965 liturgy as a realistic option, and therefore favor it.  

And, when I see the 1965 liturgy, I see a liturgy that can be celebrated in "full" conformity with tradition.   However, I also see it as a liturgy that can be "doubtfully" celebrated in conformity with tradition.  But, the proof is in the pudding.  And, I see it only as a negative doubt.  Because, the church received this liturgy and +Lefebvre did not rebel against it until many years later.  I think it wasn't until the 1980s that +lefebvre settled on the 1962.  And, I suspect from what I see now concerning the taboo of picking of choosing that is so evident, that +Lefebvres "liturgy of Econe" in the early days(1970-80)was celebrated in full conformity with the rubrics of 1965-68.  

Now, this is important.  Because, when I compare that with the NO.  I do not see it as a liturgy that can be celebrated in "full" conformity with tradition.  And, this is viewed from the eyes of an informed layman in the year 2017.  Because, when I view the big picture, I cannot fail to see that two bishops of the church(one an archbishop) refused obedience and altered the course of the church in favor of the survival of the traditional 1962 rite.  And, to me, this means that the holy ghost will not allow the lofty changes of the 1969 liturgy to dominate the church's worship for reasons that are irrelevant to this conversation.   Because, the point is, that I am not living in the past, and neither should traditionalists.  The catholic church has a head, and that head is the papacy.  And, that church has 4 marks, and one of them is that she is to be holy.  And, catholics are seriously divided as to whether our head is holy or not.  So, lets focus on and fix that at all reasonable and acceptable costs.