I thank you for the first paragraph.
On the second, two comments. First, as even many neo-traditionalists will admit, was of the problems from Trent onwards was the inability to have a true, organic development of the Mass. Trent over-regulated and made more gradual reform impossible.
Second, still, the Roman Mass of today stands firmly within Roman liturgical tradition. While it was not to ‘appease’ Protestants, if you are going to make that claim, you might add to the believability by saying it was to appease the Orthodox (concelebration, communion in both forms, standing for communion, no fake deacons and subdeacons, varitable eucharistic prayers, vernacular liturgy, etc.).
It should also be noted that a liturgical movement had been going on for some time preparing the Church for the liturgical renewal. What’s so interesting is that many of the principles of the pre-Counciliar liturgical movement – late reforms to Tridentine practice – are now embraced by neo-traditionalists, often unwittingly as they frequently speak as if these were long standing practices.
On another board, a dear, dear little neo-trad boy was shocked to learn that Gothic chasubles were unauthorized innovations of progressive liturgicalists. He was astounded to learn that conservatives used to send nasty letters to Rome about their unauthorized use (pre-1957). We have talked about the conservative crusade against Latin/Vernacular Missals (a cause they lost around the turn of the century) and the absence of Gregorian Chant from Catholic worship until its 19th century revivial by the progressives.
Lastly, I can remember the 1950’s. Two worship activities pegged you as a liberal – you worshiped at High Mass and/or you worshipped with Negros. And if you did BOTH of those things, God help you – you may as well as had “Commonweal reader” tatooed on your forehead.
