From the cheap seats the two of you appear to be having an honest difference of opinion.
Many, perhaps most, even if not all, of those lay Catholics who regularly (weekly) attend The Usus Antiquior (a.k.a. Mass of the Ages/the Traditional Latin Mass/The Mass of Pius V/Extraordinary Form) nevertheless have been inclined to accept at least the purported validity, if not necessarily the full liceity, of the so-called Novus Ordo Novus Ordo Missae (a.k.a., Mass of St. Paul VI/Montinian Mass/Ordinary Form). They have likely done so based on the justification of the latter offered by the Ratzingerian so-called “Hermeneutic of Continuity”. Yet it would appear that with the recent release of Bergoglio’s so-called Motu Proprio, the Ratzingerian “Hermeneutic of Continuity” has been struck a fatal blow and replaced by its opposite: a Hermeneutic of Rupture.
It seems certain that no serious theologian or canon lawyer will be willing to defend the existence of a two-sided coin that is the Roman Rite, one side being the so-called “Ordinary Form”, and the other side being the so-called “Extraordinary Form”.
But doesn’t this lead to a conundrum? How can the Novus Ordo Missae (previously referred to as the Ordinary Form) be considered by reasonable people to be both valid and licit if instead of a Hermenuetic of Continuity, we have instead a Hermeneutic of Rupture?
As between the Usus Antiquior and the Novus Ordo Missae it seems certain that there must be at least one form of the Roman Rite that remains both valid and licit. With the nearly unanimous verdict of history now in, and the Hermeneutic of Continuity now declared to be “history”, a theory that had its day and is now and forever to be ignored as a total fiction, is it really so clear that the Usus Antiquior is to be jettisoned in favor of the Novus Ordo Missae?
Why not the opposite? Does basic logic not now dictate that we instead immediately relegate the Novus Ordo Missae to the ash bin of history, and immiately re-institute the Usus Antiquior in its place, whenever and wherever the the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented according to the Roman Rite?
In any event, does any persuasive justification still exist for continuing to claim that the Roman Rite exists in two valid and licit forms as opposed to only one valid and licit form? If so, what is this justification? Who is propounding it? Inquiring minds need to know!
“Cheap seats”? These priests you want me to look up to are engaging in homosexual and pedophile acts AND the church covers up for them. Spout all the latin and history you want. It doesn’t change the fact that your church is filled with perversion. The catholic church ACTIVELY engaged in protecting pedophile priests, AND even moved some to areas where they could re-offend. Don’t YOU talk “cheap seats” to me! You are an “enabler” of child abuse! I see you for EXACTLY what you are! All the pageantry, wardrobes, symbolism, stained glass and BS doesn’t clean up screwing kids! You are a foot soldier for child-molesters. There is a stench you should smell, but refuse to. The stench is NOT my fault. Your failure/unwillingness to smell the stench is NOT my fault. When you don’t have be-robed pedophiles screwing kids, then you can spout your latin magic crap. Until then... Clean up your own yard!
NO! There is NO honest “difference of opinion”! You seem to pretend that Marin Luther and Guttenberg never existed. YOU are STILL in that same mold of hundreds of years ago! Go out piss on your neighbor, steal from them, wrong them... so long as you confess to some pedophile in black drag... that makes it okay. The fags and pedophiles are standing there waiting to absolve you of your sins, so long as you pay them and play along with their crooked game.