I attend a Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), let me explain a little:
#The on paper changes Vatican II wrought:
The Traditional Latin mass has come under heavy restriction since the 60s, since the second Vatican council, there was a big push towards the novus ordo (the NO, the new mass) in the vernacular (not necessarily, but de facto). It is important to note that this is not just a change of language from Latin to English (or whatever languages are spoken locally). The missals are different https://lms.org.uk/missals , with a lot of missed content, the NO mass has different prayers and a different calendar. The direction the priest faces is different (Traditional Latin Mass has the priest face east towards the alter, novus ordo now often has him face the congregation), the amount and type of participation from the laity is different with the NO requiring more participation from the people, and the way you take communion is different. Latin mass takes it kneeling on the tongue at alter rails, Novus Ordo takes it on the hand. I can understand why you might not think this important, but there are deep concerns and worries about the hand method from traditionalists which we can get into elsewhere.
#The other changes
Those are just the explicit and acknowledged shifts, but there are more. On paper Vatican II still encourages that the Novus ordo place chanting and organ in a privileged position, other instruments should only be very carefully considered, are they wholly appropriate and conducive to prayer?
Musical instruments can be very useful in sacred celebrations, whether they accompany the singing or whether they are played as solo instruments.
"The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, since it is its traditional instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lift up men's minds to God and higher things.
"The use of other instruments may also be admitted in divine worship, given the decision and consent of the competent territorial authority, provided that the instruments are suitable for sacred use, or can be adapted to it, that they are in keeping with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful."[43]
In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.[44]
Seems pretty clear right? The music should all be the same good old stuff. And yet the Novus Ordo masses have, by and large, lost this. Guitar, bands, secular music have all found their way into the Novus Ordo. So the actual shift is far more pervasive than what the actual text would imply.
It's hypothetically possible to attend one of the few 'reverential novus ordo' masses with all the respect for all those traditions, but, some call them 'unicorn masses' for a reason.
I can also understand if you think these are largely cosmetic or aesthetic issues so far (but for communion), but we also see big changes in confession. Not just to the sacrament itself, but in how often it is offered. You can't take communion if you're not in a state of grace, mortal sin requires you go to confession first. At my local NO church, confession is only by appointment. Or '30 mins on a tuesday only'. At the latin mass church the queue is regularly 'round the corner', they can barely keep up with it. Is this the congregation demanding more of this rite or even going into being scrupulous? There are elements of that, but the point is that this fundamental important rite is actually offered regularly at the Latin church. To not offer confession to the type of person attending a Latin mass? It's not tenable.
#Who attends the Latin mass?
Ok. Now lets look at who attends the old Latin masses. It is all conservatives and traditionalists. There is a bit of a gap in the generations if I am honest, my local* (I wish it were local) latin mass is all either 80+, or it's under 35's traditionalists raising big families (and so these congregations are growing). Most of the girls and women wearing mantillas. They also lean quite heavily traditionalist and conservative in politics. Day 1 of attendance I got into a chat about the globalists and NWO with an old bloke before going to confession, initiated by him. The NO churches are more 'boomer', but no young families (immigrant heavy ones are a bit different)
In other words, Latin mass is largely Catholics who would mostly align with us here on this board, just less nerdy about video games.
#The values of the Pope
Now let's look at who the Pope is. He's a progressive Jesuit. Seen as more in line with the movements coming out of Germany than the types who attend the Latin Mass, traditionalists.
Pope Benedict was seen as more accepting of the Latin mass, and lessened the restrictions on it. We're seeing them return now, as many predicted, after the death of Benedict.
#other issues
This has already caused some schism. There was a traditionalist archbishop excommunicated in the 70s for doing emergency consecrations of 4 bishops to continue the latin mass and grow that order. He'd been promised permission but it kept being delayed... He and those bishops later had those excommunications lifted*, and that society (the sspx) has then always had somewhat irregular status. The FFSP which came from them is more in line with rome, while other splinter groups from the sspx are fully schismatic. The sspx and ffsp together form a large number of the latin mass churches. I can perhaps see why there is a worry about schism in the church about the traditionalists, but the answer can't be a repeat of the 70s. Driving them away and restriction of their old catholic ways is what creates schism it seems to me.
His faculties were failing. He was a blindingly brilliant guy (don't care about anybody's thoughts on organized religion, read his work and tell me otherwise) - I think losing this made it impossible for him to proceed. I didn't like it and wish it didn't happen, but it's more ethical for him to step down than to let one of the subordinates use him to their own ends.
I attend a Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), let me explain a little:
#The on paper changes Vatican II wrought:
The Traditional Latin mass has come under heavy restriction since the 60s, since the second Vatican council, there was a big push towards the novus ordo (the NO, the new mass) in the vernacular (not necessarily, but de facto). It is important to note that this is not just a change of language from Latin to English (or whatever languages are spoken locally). The missals are different https://lms.org.uk/missals , with a lot of missed content, the NO mass has different prayers and a different calendar. The direction the priest faces is different (Traditional Latin Mass has the priest face east towards the alter, novus ordo now often has him face the congregation), the amount and type of participation from the laity is different with the NO requiring more participation from the people, and the way you take communion is different. Latin mass takes it kneeling on the tongue at alter rails, Novus Ordo takes it on the hand. I can understand why you might not think this important, but there are deep concerns and worries about the hand method from traditionalists which we can get into elsewhere.
#The other changes
Those are just the explicit and acknowledged shifts, but there are more. On paper Vatican II still encourages that the Novus ordo place chanting and organ in a privileged position, other instruments should only be very carefully considered, are they wholly appropriate and conducive to prayer?
Seems pretty clear right? The music should all be the same good old stuff. And yet the Novus Ordo masses have, by and large, lost this. Guitar, bands, secular music have all found their way into the Novus Ordo. So the actual shift is far more pervasive than what the actual text would imply.
It's hypothetically possible to attend one of the few 'reverential novus ordo' masses with all the respect for all those traditions, but, some call them 'unicorn masses' for a reason.
I can also understand if you think these are largely cosmetic or aesthetic issues so far (but for communion), but we also see big changes in confession. Not just to the sacrament itself, but in how often it is offered. You can't take communion if you're not in a state of grace, mortal sin requires you go to confession first. At my local NO church, confession is only by appointment. Or '30 mins on a tuesday only'. At the latin mass church the queue is regularly 'round the corner', they can barely keep up with it. Is this the congregation demanding more of this rite or even going into being scrupulous? There are elements of that, but the point is that this fundamental important rite is actually offered regularly at the Latin church. To not offer confession to the type of person attending a Latin mass? It's not tenable.
#Who attends the Latin mass?
Ok. Now lets look at who attends the old Latin masses. It is all conservatives and traditionalists. There is a bit of a gap in the generations if I am honest, my local* (I wish it were local) latin mass is all either 80+, or it's under 35's traditionalists raising big families (and so these congregations are growing). Most of the girls and women wearing mantillas. They also lean quite heavily traditionalist and conservative in politics. Day 1 of attendance I got into a chat about the globalists and NWO with an old bloke before going to confession, initiated by him. The NO churches are more 'boomer', but no young families (immigrant heavy ones are a bit different)
In other words, Latin mass is largely Catholics who would mostly align with us here on this board, just less nerdy about video games.
#The values of the Pope
Now let's look at who the Pope is. He's a progressive Jesuit. Seen as more in line with the movements coming out of Germany than the types who attend the Latin Mass, traditionalists.
Pope Benedict was seen as more accepting of the Latin mass, and lessened the restrictions on it. We're seeing them return now, as many predicted, after the death of Benedict.
#other issues
This has already caused some schism. There was a traditionalist archbishop excommunicated in the 70s for doing emergency consecrations of 4 bishops to continue the latin mass and grow that order. He'd been promised permission but it kept being delayed... He and those bishops later had those excommunications lifted*, and that society (the sspx) has then always had somewhat irregular status. The FFSP which came from them is more in line with rome, while other splinter groups from the sspx are fully schismatic. The sspx and ffsp together form a large number of the latin mass churches. I can perhaps see why there is a worry about schism in the church about the traditionalists, but the answer can't be a repeat of the 70s. Driving them away and restriction of their old catholic ways is what creates schism it seems to me.
Why did Pope Benedict resign?
Why wasn't this seen as a grave derelict of duties?
Why would he just abandon the responsibility put on him by his peers, and presumably from the religious point of view, from god?
His faculties were failing. He was a blindingly brilliant guy (don't care about anybody's thoughts on organized religion, read his work and tell me otherwise) - I think losing this made it impossible for him to proceed. I didn't like it and wish it didn't happen, but it's more ethical for him to step down than to let one of the subordinates use him to their own ends.