In my experience, for a lot of normal TLM-goers or people interested in traditional elements one of the most puzzling questions is "Why not?" or "What's so bad about this?" They don't understand what's so harmful about Latin or ad orientem or Gregorian chant. >

Have these people even met any Dominicans? I can assure you that we are most definitely *not* dominating baseball!

The fact that you get angry with me after I beat you proves that I was right about your angry heart all along.

If you are going to say that someone rejects Vatican II, then you had better be prepared to state the exact teaching on faith and morals proposed by Vatican II that they have publicly rejected. If you don't, then it is you who are creating division and disunity in the Church.

Let's just be honest, no one really believes in "synodality" -- even when they pretend to know what the term means. People believe in their ideology and in obtaining the means to enact it. If that means democracy, then so be it; if that means autocracy, then so be it.

Not a good look to tell other people that they don't understand the history of the liturgy when in the very post that you do so, you get the history of the liturgy wrong.

The thing that you want to call heresy or schism: there's an 80% chance that it actually isn't.

the sudden modern desire to legislate liturgy is not the fruit of the liturgical movement of the early 20th century. Rather it often takes the form of modern power that imposes from outside expecting internal ascent, and is surprised when it doesn’t receive it.

This is the first time that I have had to preach for the seventh sunday of Easter.