First you say this:

In fact, quite logically, the Novus Ordo now actively discourages the hand missal,

Then you say this:

Right, I only moderate my statements in saying that the hand missal isn't modernist but is a watering-down that facilitates Modernism.

  So you say...the lay missal is facilitates modernism, yet the *peak* of modernism (i.e. the new mass) discourages lay missals.

Your logic makes no sense.  The dialogue mass encourages modernism and also discourages lay missals.  The lay missal encourages private, quiet prayer; a dialogue mass does not.  The two could not be more at odds.

First you say this:


Then you say this:


  So you say...the lay missal is facilitates modernism, yet the *peak* of modernism (i.e. the new mass) discourages lay missals.

Your logic makes no sense.  The dialogue mass encourages modernism and also discourages lay missals.  The lay missal encourages private, quiet prayer; a dialogue mass does not.  The two could not be more at odds.

Hand missals are discouraged in the NO because their purpose is already being served by the rite in the vernacular.

If you understand latin to a large extent, then you must enjoy the richness of the prayers, proper and ordinary, of the Mass and you should be thankful, for the liturgy is absolutely wondrous.

However, you've been saying something in a couple of posts that is just not true. People, be they from certain meridional parts of latin countries or not, do not understand latin simply in virtue of their mother tongue. This has not been the case for quite some time.

If a person has any measure of intellectual curiosity --- as I do --- they're going to want to know "hey, what are they saying up there?". 

Moreover, even if you only understand the vernacular, a bilingual missal is going to open up the richness and the deep theology of the prayers of the Mass, and it can function as a type of catechism.  I don't see a down side to that.  After all, when in my youth I stumbled upon a Father Stedman missal, I immediately began studying the vernacular (I was ignorant of Latin at the time), saw how much more elaborated the prayers were, and had to ask "why did the Church get rid of all this?". 

Newchurch doesn't want people reading the old missals and asking questions.  They want everyone simply to think "it was in Latin, nobody understood it, and that was bad".  For the typical Newchurcher, the Church began in 1962, and everything prior to that is just quaint stories about medieval saints and obscurantism from an era when you had all of those old fogey Italian Popes named Pius (which is a weird name in the modern era anyway).  Younger Catholics know nothing but John Paul II and afterwards.

Hand missals are discouraged in the NO because their purpose is already being served by the rite in the vernacular.

Hand missals are beginning to be discouraged in the NO because these were a quaint boomer accessory masquerading toward legitimacy. Perhaps the next generation still uses them here and there for now to humor their elders. Yet except for the likes of Weinandy or Weigel, the postmodern (or whatever you want to call it) NuChurch doesn't even feel a need to demonstrate legitimacy anymore; all those arguments about how it was really done back in the catacombs have vanished. Why bother, when Roche gets his way arbitrarily. What's spreading now is call-and-response, gratuitous enculturation, or some other freeform Theater of the Absurd. A dialogue mass at least is still premised on standardization.

Here is where broad-brush categorizations of modernism lead to imprecision, especially when applied to the conciliar behemoth from the perspective of these narrow margins that don't even want what the neo SSPX is peddling.

You have to hold his hand all the way.

I noticed.