Thanks pfreese for your link, a little further on americamagazine.org I found this one which I'd like to share (I recognise a few aspects of my own short history with the TLM) and that is very much to the point in this discussion:
I once fell in love with the Latin Mass—which is why I understand why Pope Francis restricted it

Predictably, Commonweal magazine, in an article by Rita Ferrone, has responded favorably to Pope Francis’ Traditiones Custodes. This magazine puts value on good writing and Ferrone follows that tradition, but regrettably shows no inclination to face shortcomings of liturgies of the typical Catholic parish that has fed the rise of the traditionalist movement.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/living-catholic-tradition?utm_source=Main+Reader+List&utm_campaign=2e07596713-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_407bf353a2-2e07596713-92491689

tomjaw,
thanks for the link to Bp. Paprocki's interview.

I read this
** CWR: In releasing the motu proprio, the Holy Father indicated that Rome had surveyed bishops throughout the world regarding the Traditional Latin Mass. Were you one of the bishops surveyed?

** Bishop Paprocki: I do not recall getting that questionnaire. The Holy Father referenced it in releasing this motu proprio, so I was wondering about receiving it myself. So I went through the USCCB website and did find it there, dated April 2020. But I did not receive anything in the mail nor by email that called my attention to it. You would really have to be proactive in following the USCCB website to have seen it.

i am not familiar with the USCCB website. Has anyone on this forum seen the TLM questionnaire there, and can give a link? thanks

I deleted someone's rude personal comment.

This is a good time to write a kindly letter to your bishop, stating that there (if indeed) there appears to be no division or rancor with the TLM in your diocese.

Keep your eyes open, pfreese. Read the signs of the times. Cancellation of scheduled public events (grandparents' Mass) is one indicator.

More to the point on this issue: the document is not-too-well written, notably NOT including a delayed effective date.

What's the rush? Another week of scribbling and a month of 'pause' certainly won't kill anyone. (Cough)

And do you have 'inside information' on the mind-set of a new Pope vis-a-vis the UA? Please share!

Impaired hardware can ... last a lot longer than people think, especially when combined with a constitution hardened by long experience with impairments. (My late mother took after her aunt in this regard: seemingly very impaired and vexed for decades, but still fiercely operable into the nineties. Not every nonagenarian has had decades of robust physical health.)

Getting software and hardware to agree on a sign-off moment together is itself a much greater challenge than one might imagine without much experience.

I guess those bishops just don't understand Vatican II.

But if I’m wrong and he does pass away by years end

Hedging? Only 6 months or so? Over the price of a BEER?

Accompaniment, Andrew, appears to mean less than we thought it did.

I know that a lot of people don't like Fr. Zuhlsdorf's ... style.
However, I feel like this post of his gets at the heart of why people are trying so hard to forcefully shove down our throats Traditionis custodes as though it isn't inherently flawed and self-contradictory.

I think this thread, and even the post I shared above, is proof that we are all taking it quite seriously.
The fact that this was done to people who take their faith seriously, while leaving prevalent open heresies and abuses be, begs a much more serious question... which has not been left unmentioned by people in this thread.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said something interesting in his extremely relevant The Ratzinger Report. He was asked why many liturgical abuses on the left were ignored while the Lefebvrites were challenged. He answered that it was because Lefebvre had organized. At that point he had not ordained bishops--thankfully, Ratzinger said.

it's non-binding because everyone is speeding

Well, you know what they say... you don't want to be the last / slowest person in a group of speeders, because you'll be the one picked off by the police.

Given reception theory, what would we say about Humanae Vitae?

Besides what Fr. stated in the linked post?

Reception theory states that a law, in order to be a law, a binding law, must be received by the community for which it is intended. If they community does not receive it, that is, they reject it outright or it fails to have any effect on how they live, the presumed law is non-binding and is really no law at all.

This doesn’t apply to moral law, because it flows from above reception or rejection by mere human beings. In the late 1960’s and after, dissidents from Humanae vitae infamously tried to apply “reception theory” to the Church’s teaching on contraception. Fail.

@Chaswjd, I am looking at a letter signed by the Bishop, HE Douglas Crosby, OMI.

As Bishop, he notes that he "regulates the liturgical celebrations of his diocese", and he refers to the GIRM, especially #299 ("the altar should be built separate from the wall..."), and to his own 2018 pastoral letter. Those are his bases.

From the pastoral letter (previously discussed), it is already clear that His Excellency sees his authority as extending far enough to limit or specify the choices available in the rubrics. His Excellency doesn't refer this new restriction to the motu proprio, except in so far as the latter restates the Bishop’s liturgical authority in canon law.

Interesting pair of articles referencing St. John XXIII's Veterum Sapientia (1962) in connection with analysis of Traditionis custodes. Dr. Nancy Llewellyn writes at NLM that Veterum Sapientia "envisioned and required a broad restoration of Latin culture throughout the Universal Church, and provided an arrestingly concrete and detailed plan to make it happen."

And yet it is essential to note that no document of the Second Vatican Council, nor any subsequent papal document, has ever abrogated or even modified Veterum Sapientia. If one defines law as valid statute rather than simply what people happen to be doing, then Veterum Sapientia has been the law and policy of the Universal Church since it was signed, and remains so today.
...
To what extent the Council Fathers shared the vision of Veterum Sapientia is an investigable question, especially given what actually happened in the years and decades following the Council’s conclusion. It yet remains a matter of fact that neither the Fathers, nor any subsequent synod, nor indeed any of John’s successors ever abridged or abrogated it. Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, in fact, were careful to cite it in initiatives of their own.

Dr. Llewellyn's main argument is that the use of the tradition of Vatican II as a justification for Traditionis custodes may be a bit selective in practice. Cardinal Brandmüller, on the other hand, uses Veterum Sapientia as an example of a merely ecclesiastical law that never came into force in the first place because it was never received.

First of all, it should be noted that a law does not require special acceptance by the interested parties to acquire binding force. However, it must be received by them. Reception means affirmative acceptance of the law in the sense of “making it your own.” Only then does the law acquire confirmation and permanence, as the “father” of canon law, Gratian († 1140), taught in his famous Decretum. Here is the original text: “Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur. Firmantur cum moribus utentium approbantur. Sicut enim moribus utentium in contrariem nonnullae leges hodie abrogatae sunt, ita moribus utentium leges confirmantur” (c. 3 D. 4). “Laws are established when they are promulgated. They are confirmed when they are approved by the behavior of those who use them. For as due to the behaviors of users in an opposing direction, quite a few laws today have been abrogated, so through the behaviors of the users the laws are confirmed.”

This means, however, that for a law to be valid and binding, it must be approved by those to whom it is addressed. Thus, on the other hand, some laws today are abolished by non-compliance, just as, on the contrary, the laws are confirmed by the fact that those concerned observe them.
...
As an example of a lex mere ecclesiastica [a merely ecclesiastical law], consider the Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia of Pope John XXIII of February 22, 1962, in which the Pope prescribed Latin for university teaching, among other things. Young scholar that I was, I reacted only by shaking my head. Well, Latin was the norm at the Gregorian University in Rome, and this made good enough sense given the babel of languages among the students, who came from all continents. But whether Cicero, Virgil and Lactantius would have understood the lessons is doubtful. And then: the history of the Church, even of modern times, taught in Latin? With all the love professed for the Roman language—how could it work? And so it remained. Veterum sapientia was hardly printed before it was soon forgotten.

But what this inglorious demise of an Apostolic Constitution meant for the prestige of papal authority became evident only five years later, when Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae vitae (1968) was nearly drowned amid protests from the Western world.
Robert Moynihan's translation at Rorate Cæli (7/29/2021).

The implication being that if Traditionis custodes isn't generally followed, then it will never become valid law. Cardinal Brandmüller makes other insightful points as well.

You know what's so bizarre? At one point, it was (almost) anathema to offer the mass in any other language than Latin, now it is anathema to offer it in Latin.
Only in the Catholic church.....

now it is anathema to offer it in Latin

Take this as direct evidence that the Council and His Holiness are directly in conflict.

Furthermore, take this reality as evidence of the sheer illogicality of the Missal of Paul VI being capable of being the unique expression of the lex orandi.

It is not anathema to offer the mass in Latin according to the Missal of Paul VI. Canon 928 indicates that the mass is to be offered in Latin or the vernacular if there is an approved translation. What the recent motu proprio regulates is the offer of the mass according to the 1962 Missal.

Although some bishops claim to the contrary, I do not see what authority a local bishop has to forbid the celebration of the mass in Latin according to the Missal of Paul VI. Nor for that matter can I see where a bishop can regulate saying the mass according to the Missal of Paul VI ad orientem. But perhaps that is me being rigid.

Hawkins,

That's right. Banning Latin can never be for pastoral good, so a bishop who uses his rightful authority to do that which is contrary to his duty lives and walks a contradiction.

Arthur,

Thank you for that clarification.

Advantages to the TLM have little to do with Latin. It states the theology it presents in clear terms and is not as subject to individual interpretation as the NO. Options are few and far between and creative interpretations and practices are generally forbidden. Music is superior, or should be. In practice it wasn't/isn't always better. I have heard some really bad music at those Latin masses. Latin is a side issue and it is far too easy to be sidetracked and go down rabbit holes over it. I don't discourage the study of Latin since I had courses in it myself. It does, however, have very limited applications.

The orientation of the Missal of Paul VI is anthropocentric, while the orientation of the other form is theocentric
The TLM was not so God-centered as it was priest-centered

To my mind, treating either Sacramental Form as if it were some sort of profane but not sordid human play is tempting when comparing liturgy, but seems to fit the examination of conscience's definition of some kind of imperfect speech. Yes, there are rubrics which might be "better" or "less better", but these are mere accidents, and we do not attribute the accidental properties to the Substance, nor does the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass permit any blemishes.

Q. Where do Traditional Catholics go to Mass?
A. Their local parish!
Q. What do Traditional Catholics complain about their local priest?
A. Nothing!
Q. What do Traditional Catholics say when their Bishop tells them to do something they don't like?
A. "Yes!"

What we are living through in the world today is a phenomenon called Post-Modernism. Wikipedia defines this as:

an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or economic power

The word I'd like to emphasize is attitude. It is not an intellectual or theological proposition, it is merely the fashion in the air. Go to any cocktail party, even one limited to serious, practicing adult Catholics, and you will find that the guests trade cynicisms and ironies as if they were the very essence of wit. It is seen as practically a work of mercy these days to instruct the ignorant about the latest negative news about this or that. And when Catholics get together, the target is often Holy Mother Church, her ministers and laypeople, her rules and her present state. This is not in any way limited to those who attend Masses celebrated according to the older Missal.

For many, the choice of attendance at a particular Mass liturgically consummates their particular postmodern attitude, whatever it is. Roaming Catholics, we call ourselves - roaming to find our own place in a big Church - how rich we are to be able to drive miles to our place of preference. Do we find Christ there, passing by Christ so many times in tabernacles along the way, or do we mostly find ourselves? And we are not mere materialists, we are not merely looking for bells and smells and sights and sounds, a pretty girl in a mantilla and a handsome young altar boy, nor even do we seek beauty alone (in which we may glimpse too the divine), but we also put on identity, and adopt principled positions, and find a sense of family. And the liturgical progressives do the same, although they seem (I am not one of them, so my characterization is unreliable) to deliberately seek the ugly and artistically mundane and the grace that churns most plentifully in sin's wake. But in so doing, we all neglect Christ in the tabernacles we pass, and fail to find family in the people nearer to us (who by definition are our neighbors).

So this too is a criticism, an irony - but not a rejection. We are postmodern Catholics and this is how we roll. If we can be honest with ourselves and with others, we can admit that nobody is stuck in any past, that we are all creatures of mid-2021 who freely choose to do what we want. We are doing our best to find our way, so cut us some slack!

But time has marched on, and our post-modernism too has "gone out of fashion". The new era will reject "victimary thinking" and allow "faith, trust, dialogue, performance, and sincerity [to] work to transcend postmodern irony". On the other hand, the "the triteness and shallowness resulting from the instantaneous, direct, and superficial participation in culture made possible by the internet, mobile phones...and similar means" produces "a 'silent autism' superseding 'the neurosis of modernism and the narcissism of postmodernism'", in which "the 'typical intellectual states' are...'ignorance, fanaticism and anxiety' and...a 'trance-like state' in those participating in it."

So with all this background let me nail a few theses to the door:
1. a) The TLM is a valid Rite of the Church with many good qualities, and b) it also attracts Postmodern Catholics because of its intrinsic unmodernness (i.e., that which was unmodern already in 1962). c) In addition, its juxtaposition as an Anti-Modern alternative against the Modern Rite plays to so many Postmodern themes. Reason a) is a great reason why anyone should go to the TLM, reason b) is why the TLM may be pastorally helpful in reaching Postmoderns, and reason c) is a purely secular and/or ideological motive for attending.
2. The TLM attracts Postmodern Catholics better than the NO.
3. Because many TLM attendees have little to no self-awareness of their Postmodernness, they do not fight against Postmodern tendencies and in some cases see them as pure virtues. As such, the TLM communities end up fostering Postmodern attitudes within the Church (i.e., skepticism, irony, rejection toward the modern Magisterium), including erroneous exaggerations (e.g., claims of defectability) that can be truly sinful and in some cases even rupture Communion.
4. Like Modernism before it, Postmodernism is hard to pin down.
5. Like Modernism before it, nobody admits to being a Postmodernist.
6. Unlike Theological Modernism before it, Postmodernist theological movements have not been as strongly nor cohesively condemned by the Magisterium.
7. Whether he is doing so rightly or wrongly, His Holiness is addressing a real and damaging phenomenon.

While many people are doing and saying things right now, and will continue to do so in the future, this Motu Proprio should be seen not only as the declaration of future annihilation that its author claims it to be, but also as an opportunity for humble correction of our behavior and thinking. As an analogy, we know singing is good but now in 2021 it also brings the appearance of Covid risk; in order to do Church music today we need to transcend this limitation. Where the TLM is still offered, we need to retain the good but filter out even the appearance of the bad. In so doing, we will prepare the way for some future Pope to perhaps, God willing, find that the attitudes mentioned in Traditionis Custodes have been largely cured by the severe approach taken by his predecessor Francis, and the restrictions he imposed are no longer necessary or helpful.

I am deleting off-topic comments.