This article is not so much about the question it poses (which has been well explored many times by others) as about the theological backdrop to it. Highly recommended.

« When Francis asked the world’s bishops if this [use of the TLM] was a problem, almost all of them said it wasn’t. Priests on the ground don’t think this is a problem, especially the younger ones….

If you need to impose a change from on high to reflect the reality of change, that change isn’t very organic; it is forced. Such force relies entirely on the identity of the enforcer, and that identity changes. The Traditional Latin Mass has survived and grown in a Church that has been institutionally hostile to it for 49 of those 56 years since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. How long will that enforcer care?

The second, larger problem is that if such a change is necessary, it implies Vatican II is the very thing its defenders have long denied: a new religion. The Novus Ordo becomes the euphemism for a new religion. It is not enough to say that Vatican II has a “new ecclesiology”, or conception of a Church. The Catholic Church has today, and has had over time, multiple ecclesiological views and they are typically only banned when they are heretical. Even with schisms, the Church tries to provide a way for groups to maintain their ecclesiology, just in communion with the global Church. If you are saying an ecclesiology is no longer valid, then you are saying something has changed with belief, not expression. If it is a new belief, it is a new religion. »