All I can say is it's pretty bad when someone from Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix is pointing out the flaws of the SSPX epicenter of the USA, St. Mary's.  I mean, we are normally the ones with the bad image, right?  I feel a wee bit jealous of all the attention me post is getting!!!  

Doesn't look like Fr. Angelo to me. So what FSSP Van der Putten priest is that?

Still waiting for your answer, Mmmm.

This discussion -- and the struggle we are having with this very issue in my parish -- is one of many reasons why I wish Rome would formally "recognize" and distinguish two different Catholic rites, such as she recognizes now other different Catholic rites. Simply calling it the Ordinary (and how) Form and the Extraordinary Form is not distinct enough.  A really visionary Pope would write some kind of papal docuмent to be published in parish bulletins, explaining that both communities or movements are in communion with Rome.  First, that would actually pave the way for more oversight of the N.O. abuses, by standardizing all of it within the GIRM.  (Most N.O. parishes are cavalier about following the basic requirements of the GIRM.)  As the See is now the Seat of the N.O. cult, the See could standardize the N.O. within universal norms, including formulaic prayers, rubrics, etc.  Of course, that will not happen under the current titular head, since Francis is quite a fan of the casual and the multicultural, pandering to both.  So, doubtful it would happen while he's in charge, but it would be a clever way of a subsequent leader to work toward universal (eventually traditional) compliance and universality.  Since the traditional Mass is the universal form, permanently, going "through" the N.O. first would be a way to prepare the Church populace for that. Nothing will ever happen while the hierarchy is afraid of its own authority and operates out of Human Respect.  We're going to continue to live with disobedience and pride in the ranks until a true, brave General takes over.

Following within this argument, the trads being in the minority and in effective charge of their own "troops" when it comes to liturgical form (not needing standardization from Rome), the same papal docuмent would announce the need to respect the two different rites in total, meaning that overall standards of behavior and other expectations (such as rubrics) are proper to the two distinct rites:  a Catholic visiting the other rite should expect to conform to the minimum standards of that rite and would be subject to them.  While seeming to validate the N.O. as a legitimate rite, such a clever pope would actually be preparing the Church to reestablish the Traditional Mass as the only recognized valid and licit rite.  I think this is actually possible within our lifetimes.

It's not off-topic because such a move would have the sanction of Rome to permit trad groups to enforce standards of dress and behavior for all attending their rites and related events.  

Now let's move to the laments in this thread over trad priests not asserting their own authority enough in their own locations and occasions.  I do agree; it bothers me, too.  Overall, their orientation is to bring souls to, not keep new souls away; thus, their concern is that if they preach persistently about sloppy and immodest dress (men and women), and sloppy behavior (visitors from the N.O. swinging their arms to and from HC, or putting hands in pockets, coming to the HC rail "for a blessing," on and on), such pronouncements will discourage newcomers.  

I don't think trad priests are considering the effect of merely one remark from the pulpit at the beginning of every low or high Mass -- a general remark, intended for all to hear.  Sentence One:  conformity to dress standards are published in the back of the church.  Sentence Two:  expect that others, with my advance approval, may approach you if you are observed to be inappropriately dressed.  This could be the initial, formulaic reminder, just before or just after the announcements are read (for us, those announcements are very brief; they are not everything printed, just what the priest may want to emphasize orally and they take 30-60 seconds to say).  Then the priest can go into his homily/sermon.

Where I think our trad priests are very wrong is the degree and permanence of the effect of such speech.  It's not going to keep sincere seekers away; it will only keep the disobedient, prideful, obstinate visitors from returning -- people attached to their own will and people not interested in conforming to the demands of those in authority.  

Back to my first paragraph:  Yes, yes, a pope truly in command would not necessarily consider "paving the way" for the exclusive acceptance of the TLM, but announce himself unapologetically.  However, just consider the chaos that an unprepared pronouncement would invite:  politically, it would be more problematic, probably, than an interim step would be.  I'm not talking, of course, about laypeople, or even about priests, but about the horde of modernist bishops and cardinals.  There are certainly other ways of going about the return to universal dominance of the TLM, but something shocking and sudden will be far more difficult to manage, politically and administratively. Clergy on all levels remain irrationally "afraid" of the TLM.  That's why you see all these fake hybrids of the N.O. and the TLM in so many parishes:  

The N.O. ad orientem
The N.O. with various Latin substitutes peppered within it
The N.O. with communion rails
A weird hybrid of both:  Latin Gregorian Propers, chanted, + vernacular Ordinary sung + English recessional hymn

The only reason for these tiptoes is fear.  So a pragmatic pope will probably consider the fear factor if he wants to move the Church definitively back to Tradition even liturgically, let alone fully -- doctrinally and in spirituality.

I realize it.  You're preaching to the choir, not the uninitiated, so you didn't understand my reply at all.  I'm talking about political pragmatics, not about the reality of the how the N.O. does not conform to the Traditional (largely abandoned) foundation of the Roman Church.

A Pope has the legitimate, technical authority to announce the restoration of Tradition, comprehensively.  However, many men in such a position, in the current political environment, will hesitate to exercise that full authority as immediately as we all wish they would.

That's your opinion as to the means and methods that could be used or should be used.  I, too, have a similar ideal, but working within the Vatican may alter one's perspective, given how brutally lovers of tradition have been treated in the modern era.

I have a better idea:  The addiction to modernism and heterodoxy being closely related to the sins of the flesh being practiced within the Vatican, how about a new pope concentrating on definitively and immediately purging the sodomites from the See, so that those not spiritually and intellectually blinded by their own grave sin, those more inclined to follow an orthodox pope, will be in a position to help lead a restoration. 

No restoration is going to happen while sodomy maintains a stranglehold on Rome, regardless of how suddenly the N.O. is subjugated and eliminated.  The two are very much symbiotic. 

Your recommendation as to the methods of enforcing the unwavering moral principles does not carry any weight as a layperson.  It sounds logical to you, and would also be preferred by me and probably all other trads, true, but whether what you want accomplished can be attained as rapidly as you assume (and without actually lengthening the process by producing chaos in the interim) is not something you or I are in a position to decide.  

Again, I think a lot more cowardice is being shown in the Vatican about tolerance for One of the Four Sins than about anything else.   Since the person in charge tolerates sodomy in his home, so to speak, surely the N.O. is going to continue to be tolerated with even less alarm.

And without addressing the rest of Conciliarism (in addition to the Mass itself), merely extinguishing the N.O. still leaves mountains of doctrinal needs within the Church.

Reinstate the Index
Put the Council on the Index
As part of that decision, forbid the N.O. and restore the TLM to exclusive use, including in mission territories.

And those ^ would only be the beginning.  Next would be:

Restoring traditional catechesis, which would mean....
Putting modernist catechisms on the Index, as well as modernist pedagogy

Etc. Etc.

I think that our goals are totally different.  My goal is to stop the great sacrilege of the new mass from ever being said again, because it is one of the greatest sins to have ever been committed.  I would not measure success by the number of people who agreed with me, but only by the swiftness and completeness of getting rid of the new liturgy.  If I were the pope and I ordered that each and every person who said or attended the new mass was excommunicated immediately, even if this meant that 99% of catholics disagreed with me, and even if the outcome was that 99% of catholics left the Church and stayed with their new mass (which would mean they became schismatics), I would consider my papacy a complete success.  The consideration of who or how many followed my lead is very much secondary to the primary goal of honoring God and halting that which offends Him.  Only 3 people on all the earth were with Christ when He fulfilled His Father's will on the cross.  The Church's success does not depend on quantity of people but on quality of sanctity.

I agree with Pax Vobis. We live in turbulent times. My opinion is that the approach with NO people should be quiet similar to that of the Saints during the Reformation in order to bring the flock back to the true Pastor.