... videlicet Dom Gregory Dix in Shape, who wrote of
"... a certain timelessness about the eucharistic action and an independence of its setting, in keeping with the stability in an ever-changing world of the forms of the liturgy themselves. ... In this twentieth century [Blessed, soon now to be Saint] Charles de Foucauld in his hermitage in the Sahara 'did this' with the same rite as [Saint] Cuthbert twelve centuries before in his hermitage on Lindisfarne in the Northern seas. This very morning I 'did this' with a set of texts which has not changed by more than a few syllables since [Saint] Augustine used those very words at Canterbury on the third Sunday of Easter in the summer after he landed."
Can such a rite with such auctoritas really be stolen from any presbyter of the Latin Church? From any Roman Catholic priest, in England or anywhere?
By any legislative fiat or any act of naked violence of any innovator?
One very learned English priest has recently described "the provision of this liturgy" ... when it is permitted merely as "a remedial concession for those who are yet to find their way to the true Roman Rite" ... as "both crass and cruel".
Someone in Rome seems to have borrowed some ideas from Someone in China about the forcible cultural assimilation of Uighurs. Papa Xi! I have instructed my household to be careful about to whom they open the door. No Hawkers, No Pedlers, No Brainwashers.
For me, PF has created a new problem with regard to the Usus Deterior of the Roman Rite. He has ideologised it ... turned it into symbol of something other than itself ... made it a signum efficax of his own personal detestation of the Great Tradition and hatred of certain people. I'm going to have to think about the implications for me of this disturbing imposition of new meaning.
[NOTE: new usage ... I'm experimenting with
UA = Usus Authenticus
UD = Usus Deterior]