Pope Francis on the Latin Mass as a "nostalgic disease"

Well, you can believe it or not, but I did know Dr Mirus, even went to him to see if he could help me get a job one time.  He's a good guy and very, very bright.  I respect what he and Philip Lawler do at Catholic Culture very much.

That is true, for purposes of this discussion, it wouldn't matter whether Dr Mirus and I had been roommates through four years of college (which we were not), or if I'd never met him and wouldn't know him from Adam (which obviously isn't true either).

I do find this paragraph telling, though:

Whether the Tridentine Mass has really been completely overturned is an open legal question, and is not what I meant by the abrogation of Quo Primum by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. Suffice it to say that the legitimate authority of the Church has, at the very least, approved an alternative rite for use. There is not the remotest theological justification for suggesting that this newer rite is any less valid than the previous rite. (Of course, some abuses of it may render the Eucharist invalid, but this would be true of any rite.)

One always runs a risk by trying to "read between the lines", but I see here just a little crack in the door being left, to be able to assert that the Tridentine missal has not only moral authority behind it, but perhaps --- perhaps --- has some legal protection as well.  

One could draw an analogy with the hypothetical example of the Pope waking up one morning and deciding to order that the Vatican be demolished, be leveled into a flat piece of ground with all of the rubble hauled off to the outskirts of Rome, and the property put up for sale to a real estate development (I have to imagine that real estate in Rome is pretty valuable) by day's end, "because I hate Mondays".  He is the absolute sovereign of Vatican City State, and there is no per se question of intrinsic evil here --- decommissioned churches are demolished all the time.  Does he have the legal authority to do that?  In all likelihood, yes.  But does he have the moral authority?  You tell me.  Would it be any more morally licit if he did it to sell the real estate and give the money to the poor, moving the Catholic Church's "headquarters" to a nondescript office complex on the outskirts of Rome, on some land that nobody wants?  Possibly, but again, think of what the Vatican is.

That is, after a fashion, how traditionalists view the Tridentine Latin Mass.  If they could find some legal pretext for blocking this, they would.  But even if they couldn't, the question of moral authority would still stand.

Incidentally, if Quo primum could be interpreted as allowing for an alternate rite (viz. the Novus Ordo) while leaving the TLM undisturbed, I, for one, could get behind that.  If I became Pope tomorrow, I wouldn't immediately snatch away the Novus Ordo, that would, I daresay, endanger souls.  Some traditionalists would.

Thank you for a very good post.  This discussion has probably pretty much run its course, and it has been a good discussion, but I'd just like to address briefly two of your points:

First, there would be no reason why any groups "can't use the OF".  Even FSSP adherents could use it --- it's not difficult, and requires no knowledge of Latin.  I am not conceding "well, if everyone can use the OF, there's no need for the EF anymore", I am just pointing out that there is no one for whom it is impossible to use the OF.  There's not a person on the face of the earth who speaks ecclesiastical Latin and only ecclesiastical Latin, and would sit there in stupefaction at Mass in another language.

Secondly, I am glad that you brought up cultural differences that incline, or not, towards communal activity.  Painting very broad brushstrokes (there will always be individual, personal differences and outliers), people of the Global South are more communitarian and demonstrative with their emotions and feelings, while Europeans, at least in the northern half, are more reserved and reticent.  Put another way, the hyperkinetic, jubilant scene that you shared in one video of African Catholics at Mass would be both a bad fit, and a bizarre one, in Budapest or Belfast.  Northern Europeans tend to be understated sorts, and just to use one example, the British sense of humor is legendarily subtle and flies right over the heads of Americans.  White people in the American Midwest are known for their reserved nature that could be misinterpreted as unfriendliness.  It's all probably much more cultural than genetic, but it is a fact of life.  The devout, understated French or Irish Catholic should not be stigmatized because he doesn't emote in his worship as a Congolese or Filipino Catholic might, and it would be severely judgmental to say that either approach is lacking.  I could allow for wide latitude in popular piety even using the text and rubrics of the Tridentine missal.  As I noted elsewhere, clapping is seen as a sign of reverence and respect in African cultures.  For all I know, there could be cultures in which ringing a bell is seen as gross and irreverent.  Middle Eastern cultures regard the sole of the foot as filthy and insulting, and to put your foot up towards someone is unspeakably rude, yet in other cultures, nothing is thought of it whatsoever.

That's what Pope Francis means by a "nostalgic disease": a reference to one's younger years, and questions about having to change what works. The reality, though, is that what is thought to work didn't as more wanted the Mass (and even the Bible) in languages that they could understand. Worse, what history revealed is that Latin itself was used because many understood it over languages like Greek and Aramaic, and that was was thought of as modern turned out to be as old as the Church, including communal activities and folk songs.

All these even put to question views of the form of the Mass as "timeless," "reverent," etc., all the while ignoring more who couldn't understand what was going on.

Thus, it's not just a matter of what is legal but even what is commonsensical.

One doesn't have had to experience something in order to be nostalgic about it. One can be nostalgic about something they have never experienced before.

Funny you should mention Norman Rockwell.  Here's a print that I found among my household items, and I plan to put it on the wall in my home chapel that I'm retrofitting.

I was also reflecting just today on the state-of-the art care that my mother received recently in response to a medical emergency.  If this had been even 30 years ago, when such technology didn't exist, she probably would not have survived.  She came through the emergency with only minimal lasting damage due to prompt intervention, and, again, the care made possibly by new technology.

So, no, I don't look back wistfully on the state of medical care 30-50 years ago.

As to Latin and Gregorian chant, I don't think it's that alone, that keeps people coming back.  It's more than that.  Emma Bovary-like superficiality doesn't plant deep roots.  I have known families who adhered to the TLM for decades, and they don't stick with it because of aesthetics or romanticism.