[Dajjal]

The new indult would permit any priest to introduce the Tridentine Mass to his church, anywhere in the world, unless his bishop has explicitly forbidden it in writing.

Well, if bishops can forbid the Traditional Mass, then this alleged document shouldn't be dubbed a "Universal" Indult, should it?

Also, "permitting" priests to say an "Indult" Mass is not the same as affirming that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated.

The advantages of the Mass, according to the faithful, are in its uniformity and the fact that movements and gestures are prescribed, so that there is no room for “personalisation”

No, the "advantage" to the Traditional Mass is that it is traditional -- its roots reach back to Apostolic times. It was not concocted out of whole cloth by a handful of "experts" in the 1960s.

[Pyro7480]

I see your point. But as someone on another forum where orthodox/traditionalist Catholics gather said, "This puts the progressivist bishop in a tight spot. If he refuses the TLM to his priests then does he create the pretext for the Pope to impose a group of Pontifical Right (such as the new Good Shepherd Institute) upon his diocese? I have a feeling Pope Benedict has done some homework."

[Wonder Warthog]

"No, the "advantage" to the Traditional Mass is that it is traditional -- its roots reach back to Apostolic times. It was not concocted out of whole cloth by a handful of "experts" in the 1960s."

No, actually it doesn't. The original languages of the Mass was Aramaiac, and then Greek. There is nothing whatsoever "traditional" about the Mass in Latin. It's just another language.

Sorry, but I prefer the Mass to be in the vernacular. It is very distracting to try to follow the English "notes" in the Missal as the mass is said in Latin.

For you purists, if a parish wants to have a "Latin mass" as ONE service along with the vernacular, then fine. But I won't attend the Latin one.