Fr. Hunwicke skriver på sin blogg om hvordan det ble oppfattet på 60- og 70-tallet å ønske å beholde Kirkens gamle liturgiske tradisjon. Da ble man regnet som (gammeldags og) illojal:
Here was the Holy See making liturgical enactments by mandate of an Ecumenical Council: what more could anyone want in terms of authoritative teaching about the meaning of the Church’s rites? If one dissented, was one not dissenting from the direction in which the Holy Spirit was leading the whole (Roman Rite) Church? Surely, one was dissenting from the mind of the Holy Father, from the Bishop of Rome who, surely had to be the normative authority about the rite of his own Church? Dissent from the old rite had now – surely – become privileged; dissent from the new rite had become inherently dubious, a sign of disloyalty.
Men nå, ved pave Benedikts to dokumenter om den tradisjonelle messen/ liturgien, er dette blitt fullstenig forandret; kjemper man for det gamle, har man støtte fra høyeste hold i Kirken:
At a stroke, Summorum Pontificum/ Universae Ecclesiae changed all this. We now had two forms of the Roman Rite «one alongside the other» (qui ad invicem iuxta ponuntur). Thereby we were authoritatively given, in areas where the two rites and their accompanying liturgical cultures happen to be at odds, what I would like to call Symmetry of Dissent. It is now no more ‘disloyal’ or ‘contrary to the mind of the Church’ to evaluate critically the OF and its culture than it is to criticise the EF and its culture. Such critical evaluation, it goes without saying, ought to be done – in each case – with a humble recognition of one’s own fallibility, and with a charitable instinct not to hurt fellow Christians whose faith in the living Lord is fed from different sources than those which nourish one’s own. It is right that those who enthusiastically favour the EF, and who feel a certain triumphalist joy about Pope Benedict’s liturgical legislation, should if necessary be reminded of this. However, I do not always sense an awareness that those, too, whose orientation differs from the OF, have a right to be treated with a similarly charitable exercise of the acceptance of diversity. …