SpiritusSanctus:
Thanks for the helpful link. I have studied the matter in depth, though, over many years. I don't want anyone to be under the impression that I am untrained in the various nuances of thought with respect to "tradition" as it speaks to the Liturgy of the Roman Rite. I don't come to this community as someone who is in the dark about various positions regarding the Mass and its proper expression.
Of course, I fully understand that Traditional Catholics view the Mass in the pre-Conciliar form as the best expression of the Roman Rite, and that form promulgated by Pope Paul VI as either a less perfect form, an illegitimate form, or even an invalid form, depending upon which Traditional Catholic one speaks to.
I have said that I often attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Most of the Catholics I know who attend that Mass describe themselves as "Traditional Catholics". Many would assert that the Tridentine form of the Mass is, in fact, the only acceptable form (with respect to the Roman Rite, at any rate) and would never attend the Novus Ordo Missae. Still others regard the Novus Ordo as legitimate, but somehow deficient. And, of course, there are those present who, like myself, accept both forms, provided they are celebrated properly.
In the context of the diocesan sponsored Masses, there is only one form that is accepted: all Latin, no dialogue. Yet I know from experience that this is not necessarily the case with respect to the Society of St. Pius X, at least. In their settings I have encountered both the dialogue form of the Mass, and also, as I mentioned, a form in which the readings were in the vernacular instead of in Latin. I wonder if the all Latin style with no dialogue is used in the diocesan setting only because no other form is known, whereas in Traditional Catholic settings other forms are known and tolerated because traditionalists are more attuned to an authentic organic interpretation of the Tridentine form of the Roman Rite, because it is their "ordinary form", so to speak.
So my aim is to pose a topic for discussion with respect to how we encounter the pre-Conciliar liturgy, which may vary depending upon locale or situation. It seemed a harmless enough topic; I apologize if it should have gotten anyone upset. I do not understand why it would make anyone upset, to be honest, but I mean no harm by it.
Thorn: as far as Father Gruner's Fatima Crusade, I must admit I found it somewhat esoteric. It almost seemed that, for them, the messages of Fatima constituted articles of Faith; that they put undue emphasis on this private revelation, elevating it to something more, and it seemed central to their belief and mission in a way that seemed, to me, to be unbalanced. I beg your pardon if saying so should sound harsh, but that was my sincere impression.