Heh. Robbo, you could just proclaim yourself to be even more of a traditionalist, and if anyone shoots you a dirty look, say "Well, that's how it was pronounced in the catacombs . . . "

By way of explanation, the Latin mass crowd within the Catholic Church is a somewhat distinct and vocal minority. They are seen as being suspect by the majority of Catholics, who suspect that the Latin Mass crowd doesn't really accept Vatican II, and wants to roll back the clock to 1962. And to the liturgical "right" of the Latin Mass crowd (who are generally labeled "traditionalists") there are two groups who believe just that -- the Lefebrvists (Society of Pope Pius X), who are in schism (having named bishops illicitly, and who do not accept Vatican II), and further out on the fringe, the Sedevacantists (Society of Pope Pius V), who believe that John XXIII and his successors were not validly elected, and therefore there is no pope. They do not even accept the 1962 missal, as it was promulgated by an (in their view) illegitimate Pope.

Catholics trained after Vatican II view all 3 groups with suspicion. I myself am in sympathy with the Traditionalists, though I think it is clearly heresy to say Vatican II is invalid. Once you've crossed that bridge, you're in dangerous country. (Vatican II, in my view, was not so much a failure of documents as of interpretation. Traditionalists (such as me) do not bemoan Vatican II per se, but they bemoan "the spirit of Vatican II", which is the phrase that modern Catholic liturgists use to legitimize all manner of tacky stuff -- guitar masses, liturgical dance, etc.).

The Tridentine mass was never formally banned, but it effectively is banned, because most of the bishops are of the "spirit of Vatican II" mindset; i.e., are actually pretty liberal. John Paul II began a swing back to the more conservative side of the church; he issued an indult in 1988 that permitted the Tridentine mass at the discretion of the local bishop (and also as a carrot to the Lefebvrists to try to bring them back in, or to discourage traditonally-minded Catholics from leaving). JP II's point man in negotiating with the Lefebvrists was Cardinal Ratzinger, who was seen as being the most sympathetic to the old liturgy and the Lefebrvists. Now that he is Pope Benedict XVI, the traditionalists within the church have been waiting for him to "free" the Latin mass from the bishops, who are mainly hostile to it. He has been mulling a "Motu Propio", i.e., a papal executive order, to do that for some time. The theory (which I subscribe to) is that the Tridentine mass, whose rubrics are precise and inflexible, is a tonic to the liturgical abuses which have grown up in the 1970 version of the mass (the Novus Ordo, as it is called by Traditionalists). The church is also a little afraid of the influence of groups like the Neocatechumenal movement, which do good works in bringing people in to the church, but whose liturgical and Eucharistic practices are questionable (whole loaves of bread instead of hosts, open discussion of the Gospel as opposed to formal homilies, etc.). The theory (that Traditionalists are accused of) is that a "free" Tridentine mass will, like an unleashed Chiang-Kai Shek, bring everyone into line overnight. So the Trads wait for the Motu Propio impatiently . . . (my first hearing the rumor of it inspired an "Aslan is on the move" feeling in my soul, which has triggered the current renewal of faith I'm experiencing . . .)

Ha ha ha - See? I knew you were a geek!

As a matter of fact, it was the use of the term "in the spirit of Vatican II" in that book by the Hahns I mentioned the other day that set off my early warning alarum system. "Oh, sure," I thought, "they'll sweet talk you back to Rome with promises about the Old Faith, but as soon as you sign the dotted line it'll be nuns with guitars."

Speaking of the language thing, I used to have a recording of Haydn's Missa In Tempore Bello performed by some East Bloc choir and I'd swear that they were singing in Classical Latin ("ex-kel-sis" instead of "ex-chel-sis" and so on). I used to wonder if this was some sort of deliberate Commie distancing from Rome.

Robbo, there aren't any nuns left to wield the guitars you so fear.

There are, however, lots of lay members who have picked up their slack.

;)

Like I said before Robbo, it's a lot bigger on the inside than on the outside. Within the Catholic church are at least seven kinds of Protestantism, at least three kinds of traditional Catholicism, a home grown Pentecostalism, and practices of faith ranging from insane flagellant Opus Dei assassin monks to greying acid-flashback hipsters staging Godspell every week in tye-dyed vestments.

Protestants view Benedict XVI as an authoritarian in the mold of say, Francisco Franco. But actually, his role is more analogous to that of the midget carnival barker Samson in the HBO series "Carnivale" -- he's the guy who ultimately tells everyone when to pick up and head to the next town, based on the guidance of the mysterious "management".

Ok, so I'm joking here -- but really, on one level, I'm not. You can drown in confusion within the Catholic church, as I did for many years. I finally have evolved a system of belief within it that makes sense to me -- Latin mass once a month (English the other three), the Liturgy of the Hours and Rosary to stucture my prayer life, and above all, the Eucharist. All of which is kept in check by readings of the Catechism and the occasional pronouncements of Rome should I become too enthusiastic or lax in any particular direction.

If you come into the church, I think you should try to keep very close to your roots, and find a church within the church that feels like the Anglican church. I'd hate to see you come in and then leave because the local experience is weird. It would be like coming to the circus and being frightened off by the clowns, without ever getting to see the elephants.