so, i don’t advocate getting rid of TLM. i don’t even mind having both TLM and NO in the same church, as is the case in my parish. i totally agree that there is a need for both, and if you read the title of this thread, you will see it says “My Opinion”.
as people in this thread have said, to each their own, you have the TLM, i have the NO. the problem is that, as we have also seen in this thread, that many TLMers make the claim the NO is wrong, disobedient, somehow inferior, or whatever, and claim the NO MUST use latin or we must just go back to TLM only. my reason for this post is i just got sick of the better/holier-than-thou superiority trip.
I think you have missed a lot of posts then.
The posters who might be what you call a TLMer, most often hold a very similar position, which is:
[1] The TLM was never abrogated. Now, thankfully the Pope has made that clear, and further, he expects it to be made available whereever even a small group desires it.
(but we now see which group is disobedient in that regard)
[2] The TLM has been restricted the
most by the
choice of the ordinary (bishop). This could be because many an ordinary, knowing they
could give an indult for the TLM treated this authority as if they should first deny… then maybe give an occassional indult.
[3] VatII gave no instructions to stop the TLM and start the NO*.(and certainly not as we too often experience it today)*
[4] The NO invisioned 40 years ago offered very few and minor changes for a
second form of the Mass.
[5] Over the last 40 years a number of abuses were
introduced by both clergy
(in their arrogance IHMO), and also by the laity
(in their ignorance and arrogance MHO).
[6] Over time, many of the abuses were finally addressed by local ordinaries and by pastors. They were simply "
christened" as “norms”.
(Again, IMHO, this happened to maintain collections, not to maintain liturgical orthodoxy.)
[7] The conversion of Latin to English resulted in a significant loss of understanding of what the words of the liturgy were always meant to say.
(this is also true of the new postures, and other “active participation” elements chosen without authority by some… perhaps with good intention, but wrong just the same…IMHO)
[8] Thus TLMers realize that the
abuses/norms that have crept into the NO are the problem.
[9]
I think the properly said NO is a beautiful liturgy. That would be the NO as offered 40 years ago
(retain some Latin, retain some Chant, retain the postures and gestures by the celebrant, retain the postures and gestures by the people, etc etc… not to mention the changes in the sanctuary)
[10] That “proper” NO, as intended, is
not easily available. And TLMers often have enough sense of liturgical history to see that. It may seem offensive, but “non-TLMers” post as if they have little sense of that same history… and don’t seem to really care…IMHO.
“Horizontal Liturgy” is running rampant. And you will see none of it by the Pope… either in Rome or here when he visits.
.
, i do use upper-case sometimes 
