Alan Cooperman does a good job on the story. Bonus: Hardly any of the usual suspects used as voices in the piece. And for that we are deeply grateful.

Pope Benedict XVI has drafted a document allowing wider use of the Tridentine Mass, the Latin rite that was largely replaced in the 1960s by Masses in English and other modern languages, a church official said yesterday.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the pope told colleagues in September that he was writing the document "motu proprio," a Latin phrase for on his own initiative, and that it was in its third draft.

"There will be a document, it will come out soon, and it will be significant," the official said. Benedict "will not let this be sidetracked," he added.

I’d say that there are two points that are missing from the piece, and that will probably be consistently missing from most coverage of this story as it unfolds. Let’s see what we can to do help. One is a broad point, the other is more specific.

1) No one is really probing, at this point, into why Benedict would do this, and why he would do it now. I have no doubt that when the document comes out it will be written and framed in typical Benedict style – so that there will be no doubt as to the foundation and motivation.

But right now, the talk is all political: he’s doing it to please a small section of the Church, to get some folks back. Fr. Z’s got a good answer – as in "all the above" – but mostly because…"it’s the right thing to do."  As I said the other day, there are principles involved – principles about the true situation of the Tridentine Mass and its place in the Church.

2) Secondly, this "back to the people" business. Note to reporters: ad orientem does not mean "back to the people." It means "to the East." Hmmm. What does that mean? Cooperman should walk down the hall and talk to his colleague Michelle Boorstein, who got it right in this earlier piece on a DC chuch.

Minor but important – it would be good for reporters to get this little point right before the real deluge hits. If it helps, let them go to some High Church Anglican services to get the point.

I think, too, that the broader implications are being not quite grasped yet – which makes sense since nothing’s happened. I don’t think anyone is anticipating masses of folks flocking to this, or masses of priests jumping to enter into the fray. Who knows what will happen when it is "freed," but truth be told, despite some hyperbole from advocates, there is not an enormous pressing demand fromt he masses – although perhaps these two stories from two different dioceses will go a little bit in teasing out the dynamic here.

-I spoke to one bishop a few months ago who had offered a Tridentine Mass at a conference I attended. I asked him, as he stood there talking to me in his fiddleback vestments, if there was an Indult community in his diocese. He pointed to himself. "I’m it," he said, adding, "there’s just not a big demand for it here." And note – this is in a diocese in which the bishop was perfectly able and willing to do what he could.

-Another diocese had just finished a diocesan-wide listening/planning process. One of those in charge, who’d attended every session, told me that the most frequently mentioned suggestion for liturgy in these sessions was "Bring back Latin." Now, I’ll tell you what this person said about this – and I think he’s right. He said that in his view (and he’s not unsympathetic to Latin, mind you), that was expressive of something deeper – people wanted more reverence and less nonsense in liturgy, and talking about "Latin" was the most helpful way for them to articulate that desire.  And perhaps some of them did want Latin, but since he was in the broader conversation, I’ll trust his assessment.

Related: this post from Michael:

What I long for is the experience that I had as a young student at Saint Meinrad in the 1980’s where in the monastic chapel the reformed rite of the Mass was celebrated exactly the way it is in the ritual. Only one hymn, a post communion thanksgiving hymn. The antiphons chanted at the entrance and other places, the psalm chanted, most of the prayers chanted, incense used, the homily on target with the Readings–something that if others experienced would have made the longing for the old days totally unnecessary…but what we all have experienced is a far cry from that and therefore the crisis in the liturgy continues…

And here’s a tip for reporters wanting an interesting angle to the story: once this comes down – go to your local SSPX chapel and get some reax. That will be interesting.

No, I think the issue is principle, doing the right thing, and wrenching the development of the liturgy back on the right track by pointing in a certain direction: The direction that is rooted in the broad, deep liturgical tradition of the Church instead of the direction that is stuck in the paradigm of Making Stuff Up. Endlessly.

(Do check out this post from Fr. Jim Tucker, a young priest from the Arlington Diocese:

Whatever the near-term future holds for the Old Rite, I think it’s important for traditional Catholics to be gracious — not resorting to spiteful comments about the New Mass (even when those comments seem justified), not using the Old Mass as a yardstick of someone’s orthodoxy or sanctity, and not trying to make it a stand-offish enclave of like-minded right-wingers. Catholics who aren’t liturgical traditionalists have some challenges, too. They ought to show interest in this rich patrimony of all Latin Rite Catholics and try to educate themselves about it and participate in it on occasion. They should set aside the negative caricatures that they have been fed and try to keep their minds open. And they need to hold back from the temptation to judge the Old Rite by rules that pertain properly to the New. And both "sides" need to avoid any tendencies to see the two Rites in hostile competition with each other, as though the flourishing of one must harm the well-being of the other. Instead, together let’s take full advantage of what may well be a great spiritual opportunity.

m