Gavin, I'd count you in the "do-something" category. What you and your pastor tried to do was very brave. No doubt you came away with some wisdom on what works and what doesn't, but that's part of the process.

I think a lot of the real anger comes from having no outlet. Here in S Florida, no one has told me that I cannot bring my schola into their church and even the local NPM chapter is supportive -- I kind of don't know how to react sometimes! Mostly people look at me like I'm from Mars when I talk about liturgy and sacred music. The status quo is so understood here that people wonder why anyone would want something different. Churches are packed, the rock bands play their thing, the priests all do homilies outside the sanctuary, the people hold hands at the Lord's Prayer and do the "orans" thing, and the churches are all mostly built after the 1980s (our diocese is relatively new). And, get this, most of the people here well remember the 1962 Mass. It's a pretty old crowd as you get closer to the coast. Traditionalism here is pretty new and most folks have not developed a reaction to it yet. They just wonder about you. I guess that's a good thing... In any case, I've been spreading the word in a positive way. My only negativity comes when I talk one-to-one with people about contemporary music. I just tell them that I can't take it anymore and avoid it whenever possible and leave it at that. They just stare and wonder...

I understand completely what you mean, but I think we should have sympathy and understanding for the way that the confusion of the past 40+ years has affected people in different ways. This goes for people who prefer tambourines as well as impossible-to-please trads.

I find that I'm most sympathetic with angry traditionalists when I don't have to be around them.

ok, just to add another example: we had the first EF Mass in 40 years at our parish last year. Afterwards, the trads in the parish (tiny) had this to say about it: they hate the dialogue Mass. That was it.

From my limited observation (Juventutem 2005 and 2008), I think that the youth movement in the traditionalist sphere is:

1) Of a High Mass mentality;
2) Devoid of the bitterness of their predecessors (indeed, since they weren't present at the upheaval);
3) More inclined to engage the "outside world" and others "outside the sphere" (here is a particularly visible example);
4) More apt to display the "affirmative orthodoxy" ascribed to Pope Benedict.

Of course these are generalizations, and there are exceptions. Still, it's encouraging.

So, when all else fails, there's always God's own Biological Solution... ;-)

One could easily counter with the angry progressivists who just go ballistic whenver anyone mentions Latin or chant or high church liturgy -- why are so many of them nuns?. There are troubled people on both sides of the argument.

I have seen the traditionalists from two sides. In the Latin church where I work, nothing is ever authentic enough for them. Father isn't wearing the correct liturgical shoe laces, or something similar and equally silly. Some of them have shown up at the Byzantine church where I worship. They are shocked that we use leavened bread. Haven't we heard of Trent? We explain that we have been using leavened bread for nearly 2,000 years now. And that Trent was called to address Protestantism in western Europe. There were no Protestants in the east, and the church was fighting Islam, not Protestantism. Trent said nothing affecting the eastern churches. Eventually, after much complaining that we don't do the liturgy "right" they leave clutching their rosaries with grimaces on their faces. Of course, we are glad to see them go. I understand the hurt over losing the EF mass and that many have suffered because of that loss. However, some of these folks are just sour, unpleasant, modern-day Calvinists who don't find much joy in anything.

I witnessed a lot of "anger" on the part of priests and bishop towards Catholics who rightly questioned the "reforms" introduced in the 1960's and 70's.

It seemed to many Catholics at that time that faith and morals were not only questioned by mocked and ridiculed at the parish level by priests and religious.

Why do you think Archbishop Lefebvre reached such a large audience?

And if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre, there would never have been an "indult" for the 1962 Missal (the edition Lefebvre used). The indult of John Paul II was a reaction to Lefebvre's consecrecration of bishops.

Rome panicked.

The "permission" to use the traditional Mass rite of the Roman Church didn't come from the "good will" of the pope.

John Paul II and Ratzinger were too busy supporting the Legionnaires of Christ of the sex scandals fame -- while vilifying Lefebvre.

In any event Lefebvre's "disobedience" proved right -- it provoked Rome to free up the traditional Roman Rite Mass.

Thank God for Lefebvre's "anger"!

The Catholic Church has lost a lot of its moral credibility as a result of the sex scandals -- in which John Paul II and Ratzinger were implicated.

I wager the Catholic Church will be greatly diminshed during the course of this century -- and non-issues like "angry Traditionalists" will pale in view of the bankrupt dioceses and closed churches.

Incidentally, as a result of the sex scandals, many Catholics gained an insight into the myth of priestly celibacy -- Richard Sipe's studies in particular -- which indicate that a mere 2% of priests have been 100% celibate -- i.e. never "fooled" around sexually -- that at any given time 20% of priests are in heterosexual relationships and another 10% in homosexual relationships and that another 40% are "making attempts" at celibacy (a "labile" group) -- and then we have the ephebophiles and pedophiles which are a smaller percentage -- but who make the newspapers because of the illegal activity.

Too much damaging information has been leaked for the average person to take the Catholic Church seriously as was the case in the past.

In this context, I doubt many Catholics trouble themselves regarding "canonical" status vis-a-vis Rome.