Well, now the debate has opened up again, and things have changed. Now, we do have a voice, and despite the fact that my even writing on this topic will annoy many who are reading this, this is really the debate that should have been had in the 1960s.
On the topic of liturgical revision there is, of course, a whole spectrum of opinion that occupies what one might call the middle ground—I am excluding on the one hand liturgical anarchists and on the other immobilists who think that the Lord began the Last Supper with the sign of the cross and Introibo ad altare Dei and therefore that nothing can ever, ever, ever be different. Then, within the defined spectrum, broad coalitions of people can be identified who share some idea or other.
1. The Society of Paul VI brigade. Those who genuinely love the 1975 missal (while regarding it as a flexible resource rather than something unchangeable), a protracted sign of peace, communion under every possible kind, lots and lots of physical involvement (ministers, readers, cantors, meeters, greeters, beaters and heaters), probably guitars and New-Seekers style music. Some zealous priests have achieved genuine good results with this unpromising material, and it would be foolish, not to say ungracious, not to acknowledge this. Here I estimate are about 10% of our Catholic population in Britain, mostly clergy, religious, and 'involved' lay people.
2. The Leave-it-alone-and-don't-pick-at-it brigade. They wouldn't put it this way, but they see value in simple sameness. The liturgy has a rhythm, and being broken out of this rhythm they find distressing, whatever their usual liturgical diet is. The content, in the final analysis, matters little, providing it is simply left alone. Some of these people might be extraordinary ministers or readers: the vast majority simply attend Mass most Sundays. These people are capable of getting all misty-eyed at Soul of my Saviour or Lord you have come to the water, and would miss them if they didn't happen from time to time. These are the group most hurt in the 1960s and 70s; these are the ones who suffered the greatest lapsations, and these are the ones who will be most hurt right now (and who might well vote with their feet) if we don't get it right. This group are particularly despised by group 1, who tend to see novelty as creativity and passivity as morbidity. Group 2 account for some 60-75% of our congregations, and being nearly all lay.
3. The Offerte-vobis-pacem brigade. Those who like the Novus Ordo in Latin, with English readings, bidding prayers, sign of peace, facing the people, communion in the hand &c. These are not a large group (maybe 5% tops) but they are influential, and have a sort of lawyer or ex-army mentality of 'well, it's right, which is to say, legal, and we should do what's right'. These people in the past have got very exasperated with Old Riters, even more than with, say Group 1, saying in a weary voice 'I just can't understand why you can't see that the New Mass can be celebrated beautifully in Latin, and why you have to go after this old stuff that nobody wants', blithely ignoring the fact that far more people want it than want what they want. If I'm making sense. This group tends to have a sense of permanent grievance that their cause is so self-evidently right and that so few people agree with them. Now the Traditional Mass is pukka once more, many of this group are withdrawing their opposition to it, but would far rather it would be celebrated with vernacular readings, bidding prayers, sign of peace, facing the people, communion in the hand &c.
4. The Trad-lite brigade. These people are glad that Summorum Pontificum has been signed, because they felt that an injustice had been done 40 years ago and that the motu proprio will restore some balance to things. They are rather hoping that their own parish priest will introduce a regular EF celebration soon, though they don't hold out much hope, and won't always go to it if he does. In the meantime, they will continue to attend their own parish church and join in things as they have always done; they wouldn't dream of going to another church for an EF Mass. When they do attend an EF Mass, they try to follow every word attentively in their missals or on sheets (because they think that's what you're supposed to do), and get distressed or annoyed if they lose their place, spending several minutes trying to find it again and missing out on what is going on. Some can find this off-putting and find that they actually liked the New Mass better than they thought they did. These people tend to be the more devout members of a parish, and return to the TLM like moths to a candle until they get accustomed to it. I estimate about 10-15% of the Catholic population.
5. The Rad Trads. Before Summorum Pontificum, these attended the most traditional form of the New Mass that they could find, wherever they could find it, being members of the Latin Mass Society and scanning the quarterly bulletin for traditional Masses in their locality. But as soon as a regular EF Mass appears within a reasonable distance, they pack mantillas and missals and hare off. They rarely cause trouble in parishes, simply refusing to engage with local clergy. If their own parish priest is a b.....d, he might make trouble for these people, refusing them communion if they kneel, objecting to mantillas. This merely reinforces the Rad Trads' sense of grievance and leads to the accusation of 'horrible traditionalists'. This group account for about 2-3% of the Catholic population.
Now, applying the Thatcher principle that, whatever you do you won't change the extremes on either side, it is clear that the battle is on for the middle ground, which is to say groups 2, 3 & 4. Group 1 is aggrieved because it has been in the driving seat now for thirty years or so, and hates the fact of the new challenge, characterizing all who approve, even slightly, of Summorum Pontificum as belonging to group 5. The reverse has not been true of group 5ers. The characterization of all who attend the New Mass as Group 1 types is really the province of extremists who don't fit in here because they have done their own thing for years, having felt excluded from the 'mainstream' Church.
Group 1 feel that they really ought to be in charge, though they are now tired and have little new or energetic to contribute. They are not nearly as numerous as their impact (reinforced by official approval from the Bishops' Conference) is strong; like nuts in a box, you only need a small handful to make a loud noise. Likewise, those on the traditional end of things are comparatively few, but Summ Pont, has encouraged them to also make a loud noise, and Rome would appear to be on their side. And the crucial difference is that those on the traditional end of things have passion and the fuel of frustration at the forty years of exclusion from the debate; they are not afraid any more of giving voice (via the blogosphere and other means) to what they think.
The jury is still out on where all this will go. No doubt many of you reading will have strong opinions on what I have written, but I shall post it as it is without revision just now, as I have to go and celebrate Mass. Novus Ordo in English, that is.