Why aren't people using the terms the Pope used?

[brotherhrolf]

No I do not understand. But it does make a little more sense than the “juridical status” argument.

Anyways I do not know what “acknowledged” means nor do I see what it has to do with the question I asked.

Again, this has nothing to do with the question asked.

If you wish to discuss this sort of thing maybe starting your own thread might be a good idea.

I’m sorry you can’t see this David. I have worked in state government for the last thirty years and prior to that I served in the Navy. “Acknowledge” is bureaucratese for “OK, I hear you, but I’m not going to do a bloomin’ thing about it”. Read Fr. Carville’s article (which I read in my own diocesan newspaper). If you don’t think he’s speaking for the bishop, guess again.

It has everything to do with the question you asked. My diocese has stated that the “indult” parish is all we need. I grew up with the TLM. I was an altar boy. Our current bishop was simply a priest and chaplain for my Catholic boys high school thirty-eight years ago. I resent being told that I am in a “minority” when the majority of us back then submitted to the magisterium.

Until my diocese grants equivalent status to the TLM so that it becomes the EF, I will continue to refer to the Mass which I knew as a child as the TLM.

And, yes, I still have my 1962 St. Joseph’s Missal which was given to me on March 17, 1963 when I was confirmed. How can I refer to something which in my direct experience (e.g. First Communion, Confirmation, and I ended up as senior altar boy for my parish in 1968) as extraordinary? New thread? I think not.