Do you really think you are winning browny points in heaven for your “aesthetic” reservations and seeming fits about 2); done with such shortsightedness that you eclipse your full realization of–and grateful transformation in–1)?

However, I will say that I think this is a whooha about nothing. My bet is that the people complaining are the minority of those looking for liturgical continuity.

No that I’m older, and times have changed, I’m seeing a ‘new breed’ of young Catholics. Many are much more open to traditional forms of worship, and seem to have a genuine appreciation for what the Pope calls ‘continuity’.

For people like me, the handwriting is probably on the wall. What was done in the name of “vibrance” will inevitiably be replaced with reverence. In time, Marty will be out, and Mozart in…And in the end, we will probably end up liturgically with the “Missal of ’65″, which may be a good thing after all.

On your second point, yes we do agree. I think sometimes I am just discouraged because the ‘high’ liturgy has been more or less unavailable to me or my family for most of my adult life. I am pleased you and others here have access to it — there is no practical option for it for my family, and I confess to feeling a sense of loss about that, which sometimes makes me perhaps a bit crusty in weaker moments.

It also helps me understand how some people in similar situations could feel that the ‘whole Church’ is being overrun by liturgical dancers etc., if that’s all they are normally able to experience. Sometimes have to remind myself that the sun is always shining somewhere.
RM

I don’t think you can argue about non-events and what people would have done if an event happened which didn’t happen. One can only argue about what happened.

I do think we both agree, in general, with liturgy if I understand your “fair enough” to me. I am high in my liturgy, and I’ve been through liturgies which I have not liked. I think we all have. But I also know that one of the problems of our society is people tend to disect and show “parts’ and use that to complain about the whole. That, however, is far and away against the tradition of liturgical studies Benedict follows.

a) if it doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

b) I do not agree that it is a ‘red herring’, perhaps you have a more expansive definition of the phrase. I am not distracting from the main point of the piece (if indeed there can be one 85 posts into the comments), I’m introducing an alternate, but related, observation.

c) On the other hand, speaking of ‘red herrings’, I’m glad you, Henry and everyone ‘prefer’ the TLM or admire its traditions, but that’s not what I was discussing. I didn’t wonder what people prefer or admire. I wondered what they would say under a certain circumstance.

No one has disabused me of my ‘groundless assumption’ that they would not be saying the same things in an alternate circumstance, they’ve only done the equivalent of reassuring me that ‘some of their best friends are traditionalists’.

I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that my point was based on an ‘assumption’, and I’m perfectly willing to concede it may have been an incorrect one. That’s why I asked it.

RM

Side 2: “Nyah, nyah, the Pope didn’t buy all of your agenda! So there! By the way, stop sowing division all the time.”

That’s the precise problem–I don’t think they know what does not “reflect” what the Pope has called for. Critics equate their tastes with Ratzinger’s liturgical theology. I await a specific, documented demostration justifying the claims of the critics.

I cannot help but wonder, would this same spirit be coming from these same commentators if the Holy Father had chosen to celebrate this Mass in a more traditional way, even TLM? I am sure they would protest that it would, but I somehow doubt it.

Wow, what a groundless assumption. Not to mention, this is a red herring. But to indulge this claim, I’ll remind you that some of our contributors here at Vox Nova actually prefer and attend the “TLM,” while others, like myself, deeply admire its tradition.

Yes, exactly.