Amazing that perhaps the most brilliant theological mind ever to be pope, one of the clearest theological communicators and most precise and careful thinkers ever to be pope, wrote so cryptically in some of his most important documents that they don't mean what they clearly say. You have to have some gnostic illumination from the secret club to understand what Benedict REALLY meant.

Isn’t it quite telling and peculiar and somewhat devious?

buy the bishop an ice cream cone

Not a decent bratwurst?

The Roman Missal encourages concelebration at the Chriam Mass, or indeed whenever the bishop is present, but does not require it. At least according to Prof. McNamara:

https://www.epriest.com/news/view/2236

If that is correct, it seems excessive to treat a disinclination to concelebrate as disobedience. Vatican II did say (in SC) that each priest retains the right to celebrate Mass individually.

If anyone doubts that the priests are manifesting communion with the bishop, it might be helpful to check who has been conducting confirmations for the parish.

"each priest retains the right to celebrate Mass individually."

Except that no priest has a right to celebrate the *Chrism Mass* individually.

The stance I think is correct is succinctly stated as follows:
1. At Vatican II, the Church decided to replace the liturgical rites then in use with something else: a revised/reformed liturgy.
2. That revised/reformed liturgy was to supplant what preceded it, and did supplant it with the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI.
3. JPII permitted limited celebration of the former rites as an exception, as an act of charity towards those with attachment to the former rites.
4. Benedict XVI permitted nearly unrestricted celebration of the former rites, also properly understood as an exception, seemingly in the expectation/hope that wider celebration of the TLM would have the effect (by example or osmosis?) of making Novus Ordo Masses more reverent and dignified.
5. In no way is Benedict's move to be understood as making the TLM equal to nor preferable to the Novus Ordo, which is the liturgical form that supplanted its predecessor and is to be the preferred form in the post-conciliar Church, as mandated by Vatican II.

I understand "the liturgical reform is irreversible" to mean that the Church will not abolish the Novus Ordo, will not rescind nor turn away from the path of liturgical reform that Vatican II decisively enacted, and that the new, revised liturgy will eventually completely replace the former rites, now permitted by exception, such that for all churches in full communion with Rome, the revised liturgical rites will be the only ones permitted to be celebrated; although schismatic communities may decide to continue celebrating the former rites. Not there yet, but that's what's on the horizon.

My own observation is that Christianity in general is declining in both numbers and influence. I don't look to the TLM for salvation since, at least in the U.S., the numbers are not there.

I was told by someone who may have better stats than I, that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.

to mean that the Church will not abolish the Novus Ordo, will not rescind nor turn away from the path of liturgical reform that Vatican II decisively enacted, and that the new, revised liturgy will eventually completely replace the former rites,

The Church won't have to abolish the Missal of Paul VI (which I refrain from calling the Novus Ordo, as a mark of respect). When the seminaries which teach exclusively the theology and praxis of what it represents are empty, it will go uncelebrated.

Vatican II didn't (as Hawkins and Tom have already noted) decisively enact an unchangeable program of reform. I would add only that if your version of reality is correct, then there will soon be one right way to celebrate it, because it is decisive and unchangeable.... and one of the qualities (attributes?) of the Missal of Paul VI as currently celebrated since the 1970's is that it is flexible enough to allow, even encourage, instability. I don't mean that the changes have been introduced gently over a period of years and that there are a few more changes to put in place before it reaches stability. Rather, instability is baked into the pie.

The new form can't replace the old if one is celebrated (the old) and one is not, the new, for lack of vocations.

So, freedom of action and positive progress toward the full realization of the vocation of the laity requires that we force unwilling priests to celebrate the form they would, otherwise, choose not to celebrate?

Yes, Francis, the seminaries will be empty. I wasn't making a comment on the theology or the praxis. I'll leave that to you.

>>> Actions have consequences (and implications).
Just sayin, I would be very careful here. I worked for a Fortune 100 corporation with disturbingly progressive ideas, one of which was: "Perception is reality."
(No, it's not.)
The two FSSP priests probably would be able to articulate their reasons; why should their motives be guessed at by perceived implication.

'those who oppose the TLM' do not, it seems, include the bishop, since he will supply a diocesan priest to celebrate a TLM on Sundays.

Rich,

You've presented the shortest form of the argument I can think of as to why we can't read SP to be grudging permission for an outdated, expiring rite.

When he says that what was valid for our parents is valid for us, too, he undercuts the "never go back" argument because we don't have to go back to get it, and freeze it in amber: it's right there, valid for us today as it has been for generations in the past, and will be in the future.

Now, I'm unsure as to what to do with the permission of Pope John Paul II. At some level he must have realized that the choppy waters the Church was enduring were, at least, partly of her own making.