The present regime in Rome is playing a dangerous game (for them), by saying that the Church before Vatican II was 'effectively' defective, and the ancient Rites need to be banned is an interesting position, and brings the following questions,
1. So did the 'church' only begin after Vatican II ?
2. Was the Church mistaken for almost 2000 years?
3. If the Church was defective before Vatican II does this mean that the present Church is also defective?
4. Is it of any interest that Pope Benedict is still alive?
5. If Traditionalists are the biggest problem in the Church right now, what was the question?
6. Does the present regime in Rome really want us Traditionalists to turn up to the local N.O. Mass parish, with our old Hand Rite missals, mantillas, large families, Traditional books of prayers, Kneel through mass, ignore the secular songs... etc. ?

1. So did the 'church' only begin after Vatican II ?

2. Was the Church mistaken for almost 2000 years?

3. If the Church was defective before Vatican II does this mean that the present Church is also defective?

4. Is it of any interest that Pope Benedict is still alive?

5. If Traditionalists are the biggest problem in the Church right now, what was the question?

6. Does the present regime in Rome really want us Traditionalists to turn up to the local N.O. Mass parish, with our old Hand Rite missals, mantillas, large families, Traditional books of prayers, Kneel through mass, ignore the secular songs... etc. ?

Is this forum a safe space to promote the SSPX?

As for the Trads, learning a few people skills and how to interact with the church bureaucracy could only help you.

it appears that there's room for improved people skills on both sides.

[34] But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. [35] And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

[36] For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. [37] After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. [38] And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; [39] But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. [40] And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

[41] And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. [42] And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus.

There's no good reason to stop promoting that which is good and holy. If anything, this latest document will persuade anyone with an open mind that this is a desperate move by men who have no good arguments against what they're fighting and who simply resort to force and authoritarianism.

I think this example applies to the current situation as well. If the Novus Ordo is the legitimate expression of the faith of the Church (and it might very well be, for all we know), then Rome should have the confidence to let it operate on its own, without placing these sort of handicaps on what it perceives to be its competition. If it is meant to be, the TLM will fade away - or the Novus Ordo. Time will tell.

But the Novus Ordo is "too big to fail", in the mind of most bishops. Hence, liturgy by diktat. And we all know how well those work out.

For me personally, I'll accept neither option. I think this whole operation to get rid of the Roman Rite and forcefully replace it with the Novus Ordo will fail spectacularly.

I know we've all gone over this many times before, but if the past 50 years has shown us anything, the choice isn't between the TLM and a beautiful Novus Ordo.

I've worked my entire career to beautify the NO, as have most of the others on this Forum, and we all know the story: more often than not our efforts have been met with opposition or just plain cancellation and suppression of Latin, chant, better music, or adherence to liturgical norms. There have been some success stories, but then it's often difficult to sustain things beyond a single pastor.

If you can't sustain liturgical reform when implemented in a parish, you need to think harder about why this is. Why is traditional liturgy not creating a strong majority preference for it, if all people need to come to prefer it is a bit of exposure? Why can't a strong enough culture be built around it to survive a priest transfer, and why are so many priests not supportive?

The really sad thing about all of this is that the Western Orthodox Churches are the only ones who are preserving the ancient Rites of the West because they appreciate the variety and beauty that they hold. Really niche, really odd and really disheartening.

I've attending Novus Ordo parishes my whole life and have never met anyone who thinks this.

2. Was the Church mistaken for almost 2000 years?

This is another straw man fallacy. No one who attends the Novus Ordo views the matter this way, and this is thus another attempt to smear the opposition.

I think everyone, when being intellectually honest, recognizes that when the Church updates the Roman Missal, which has occurred many times, that the Church is attempting to improve the Roman Missal. Improving something and making it better is absolutely not equivalent to saying that the previous version was "wrong."

Please come! Yes, we want you to be actively involved in the mainstream Church. It makes me sad to see traditionalists segregating themselves off into ghettos. The Church will be better off when you regularly interact with every other type of Catholic, and I think that both sides would benefit from this.

It's wonderful to see large families at Mass. It makes me sad to think that some of them feel a need to segregate themselves outside of mainstream Catholicism. You are welcome in a normal Catholic parish, and if you are made to feel otherwise, that deeply saddens me as well.

There is no free pass for breaking from Church hierarchy just because of your traditionalism.

It seems clear to me that much of the trad liturgical program is highly unpopular among the population of Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. If you polled a representative sample of such individuals, I strongly suspect that you would find that "organ only", "chant only", "male altar servers only", and "compulsory chapel veils for women" would poll way below 50%, perhaps on the order of getting 10% support.

or leave and become a cult outside the church.