The photo above is of Latin Mass at historic Assumption Church in Windsor, Ontario. For more info about the Latin Mass, click on this post's title.
As I've said before and will say again, it is not valid for Cardinal Mahony or anyone else to say, Well, there's no demand for the Latin Mass, only 1% want it, and I've got to tend to the 99% who want the vernacular.
Why is it not valid for the liberals to say that? Because our hierarchy have created the relative lack of demand for the Latin Mass. They have criticized that Mass as if it was bad; and, for the past 40 years, they have suppressed first its celebration and then even any knowledge of it among the faithful.
It isn't right for any prelate or priest now to act as if by shunning the Latin Mass he is merely doing what the faithful want. If the hierarchy and the clergy always did what the faithful want, then 40 years ago they would have kept the Latin Mass, which the people most certainly did want, alongside the "New Mass."
The Holy Father is so wise to let us have both rites. Time for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to come around on this and promote the Latin Mass as being fully legitimate alongside the "New Rite."
If they don't, they need to explain themselves. Do they think something is wrong with the Tridentine Latin Mass, the Mass celebrated at Vatican II? If so, exactly what is wrong with it, and what is their authority for claiming so?
What do you think about the Latin Mass? Our Church celebrated it for more than a millennium, so why shouldn't we have access to it today? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!