I will be quoting from a very good book that helps to clear up the misunderstandings and twisting of what Pope Benedict said in the Motu Proprio and why these "Liturgists" do whatever they can to block the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Chapter One "A MOTU PROPRIO THAT IS PART OF A CONTINUITY" Pages 19-22: "The Holy Father Benedict XVI, following "much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer" has finally published an apostolic letter in the form of a motu proprio on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The long awaited measures foresee a certain easing of restrictions on the Ordo Missae known as that of Saint Pius V in its most recent edition, the one published by Pope John XXIII in 1962, referred to from now on as the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. (click book photo to go to Ignatius Press page to order a copy) 1. The Provisions of the Motu Proprio It is not a matter of backtracking and thus attenuating the authority of the Second Vatican Council, or, in particular, of casting doubt upon the liturgical reform that was decided there, as Benedict XVI is careful to make clear in his letter to bishops on the occasion of the publication of his motu proprio. Thus he declares that there is an essential distinction between the forma ordinaria of the lex orandi, which remains the Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and its forma extraordinaria constituted by the Missal existing before the Council, which has never been abrogated. These two forms do not establish two rites; rather they are two usages of one and the same Roman rite (art.1).
Thus the aim of the motu proprio is not to advocate either a general return to the old Missal or the use of the two Missals indiscriminately in the ordinary life of our ecclesial communities. In essence, then, this motu proprio makes no change in the present situation, despite the proclamations of its detractors, whom Benedict XVI discreetly calls to order in his letter: "News reports and judgments made with out sufficient information have created no little confusion. . . about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown."
Meaning to be reassuring, if necessary, the Holy Father explains that in fact "the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
The change made in comparison with the indult of 1984, which Pope John Paul II asked the bishops to apply in a "wide and generous" way in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta in 1988, is the establishment of "specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal". These norms concern any priest of the Latin Rite saying private Mass, known as sine populo, who will from now on be able to use without authorization either one of the two forms of the Roman Rite (art. 2), even in the presence of the faithful who may wish of their own free will to join in (art. 4). The norms provide especially that the parish priest may himself accept a request made in his parish by "a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition" (art. 5 § 1). This authorization is thus no longer subject to an indult given by the bishop, who nonetheless retains his role as "moderator of the liturgical life of his diocese", called to ensure that the liturgical norms are respected for either form of the Roman Rite, having in view solely the welfare of souls and the unity of the flock, and urged to exorcise his pastoral care over all the faithful who are committed to his charge, without exception, referring to § 22 of the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. At the end of his accompanying letter to the bishops, Benedict XVI affirms that "Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity."
The motu proprio even specifies that if the faithful who legitimately request this do not obtain what they are asking from the pastor, they will then inform the diocesan bishop, who is "strongly requested to satisfy their wishes". In case of a dispute or obstacle, the matter should ultimately be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (arts. 7 and 8).
The motu proprio further allows for this opportunity to be extended to the other sacraments and to funerals even for the clergy to use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII (art 9). Finally, "if he feels it appropriate", the bishop may erect a personal parish in his diocese for celebrations in accordance with the ancient form of the Roman Rite (art. 10).
2. The Reasons For The Motu Proprio
It is from a remarkably lofty viewpoint and with a genuine pastoral concern and pedagogical rigor that Pope Benedict takes care to explain to the bishops the reason for his decision.
a. A liturgical formation wounded by a certain implementation of the reform
The first reason is that many people remain strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, and not merely for the psychological or sociological motives that are generally advanced in order to discredit their petitio a priori, even though the Holy Father does known "that there have been exaggerations and at time social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition".
Benedict XVI even emphasizes that where it was expected that this request would come exclusively from elderly believers, "it has clearly been demonstrated that the young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist particularly suited to them." It would in fact be difficult to underestimate the relatively low average age of traditionalist congregations.
Thus, the Holy Father is persuaded that in countries like France, where the "liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep personal familiarity with the earlier Missal was well founded and knowledgeable. This attachment found a further justification in the arbitrary deformations that accompanied the reform, which was nonetheless for its own part entirely consistent with the liturgical movement that had in many cases preceded it. With great honesty and clearsightedness, the Holy Father does in fact write, "the new Missal. . . .actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."
b. A mutual enrichment of the two Missals
So the Holy Father does not believe that these new arrangements can "lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities", as had been protested to him by way of objection. And in charity, with a nice delicacy, he alludes to the disarray and divisions that have indeed resulted in the life of the Church through the numerous fantasies that have been tolerated for the last forty years in implementing the liturgical reform and that have hidden from many "the spiritual richness and the theological depth" of the new Missal. To counter the risk of division, he even suggests that one should insist, rather, on faithfulness to the liturgical norms: "the most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence and in harmony with the liturgical directives."
He even ventures to believe that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching". In particular, the extraordinary form will lead people, in celebrations of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI, to demonstrate "more powerfully than has been the case hitherto the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage".
C. An undertaking of reconciliation within the Church
Lastly, in explaining the positive reason that induced him to make these arrangements, the Holy Father offers us a fine example of pastoral governance. For him, this is a matter of "coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church". And he suggests to bishops an examination of conscience similar to the one Pope John Paul II proposed as a preparation for the Great Jubilee of the year 2000:(1) "Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact the divisions were able to harden." Everything possible should therefore be done to allow everyone to remain in unity or to regain it. It is said very tactfully, yet this is nonetheless an invitation to the Church's leaders to a true mea culpa.
3. Earlier Recommendations
The arbitrary deformation denounced by Benedict XVI in his motu proprio and which he sees as the reason why some of the faithful have gone back to the earlier Roman Missal, were stressed time and again by Pope John Paul II. But were these assertions sufficiently taken into account?
John Paul II concluded the introduction to his fine encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia with these words: "It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery." (§10).
At the end of the chapter devoted to "The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration", he writes, "It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many" (§52). Benedict XVI is saying nothing different in his letter to the bishops. And John Paul II felt it his duty "to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity", the expression for both priest and community that "quietly but eloquently demonstrate(s) their love for the Church".
This is the very reason why the Pope asked the competent dicasteries of the Roman Curia "to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject."(2) In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in Europa, John Paul II once again went over the need for rediscovering the liturgy, but this time with the psychological weight of authority given him by the unanimity of the college of bishops represented at the Synod. "Certain signs", he says, "point to a weakening in the sense of mystery in the very liturgical celebrations which should be fostering that sense. It is, therefore, urgent that the authentic sense of the liturgy be revived in the Church" (§70). And he adds, "Although in the period following the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council real progress has been made towards experiencing the authentic meaning of the liturgy, much remains to be done. . . .True renewal, far from depending on arbitrary actions, consists of constantly developing an awareness of the sense of mystery"(§72)."