To clarify a few points, we're talking about a liberalization of the "Traditional" Latin Mass since even the official language of the Vatican II mass is Latin. The public hasn't seen the document yet (it's rumored to be coming out July 7th) but it seems that it will hold up the "old" way of doing mass alongside the new Vatican II way.

Perhaps the best analog for us is that they're restoring the 1962 missal as their "Rite I" while retaining the 1969 missal as their "Rite II".

Derek said much of what I was going to say.

It's not about Latin. It's about orthodoxy, objectivity and what I call Godwardness, part of a worldview shared with, of all people, Thomas Cranmer... (Most 1500s Christians, Catholic and Protestant, held or at least understood this view.)

(In short the reasons why I think the old Mass is better.)

The Roman Catholic 'Rite I' would be the new Mass but eastward-facing and in Latin, all of which one may do, AFAIK without permission. (As Derek said the official text is in Latin!)

This is more their '1928'.

Part of the problem is in liturgy they ruthlessly suppressed everything traditional, never giving their people a '1928' or 'Rite I' option as relatively generously, for whatever reasons, the Episcopal Church did for its people.

A good solution for them starting in 1970 would have been one traditional Mass in the parishes every Sunday, perhaps the very early service like the eight o'clock Rite I. (Which would have been easy to do in 1970 as the priests still knew how to do the old Mass.)

For an excellent explanation why things played out the way they did read the books of Thomas Day. Long story short: it was because of both the novelty of theological liberalism and aspects of the culture, particularly Irish-American, that long pre-dated the 1960s.

The 'Tridentine Rite' is neither a rite nor was it invented at or after the Council of Trent. (Linda Richman voice: 'Discuss!') It was simply a slight edit of the Roman Rite Mass as it had evolved through the late Middle Ages and was fine-tuned for years afterwards until its replacement in 1970.

If the motu proprio is handed down next month I don't think this missal will be the use of the majority (one reason is most don't want to go back to Latin) but a very substantial minority.

The best kind of Roman Catholic liturgical traditionalism is NOT about bringing back 1950s practice faults and all - abuses like 20-minute nearly silent Low Masses, which actually most people liked which was why they were done - but rather continuing what the legitimate liturgical movement was trying to do - such as congregationally sung chant Masses (like you may have seen at a Midwestern Anglo-Catholic parish at the time) and more public recitation of the office (parallelling Episcopal Morning and Evening Prayer!) - before it was cut short, destroyed, by Vatican II.

On that note if they ever approve doing the traditional Mass in the vernacular, for English-speakers the Anglican missals are theirs for the asking...

(Also true of the breviary.)

Also... orthodoxy and liturgical conservatism on one hand and good ecumenism on the other are not mutually exclusive. The Orthodox have all of these things!

Anyway, thanks be to God and to the Pope for this chance to bring Western Catholic practice back to its rightful place alongside the Eastern liturgies.