Where do Roman Rite Catholics worship?

I've just finished reading Whither the Roman Rite? by John W. Mole, O.M.I., an English priest charged by his Archbishop to serve the international Latin Mass community in Ottowa, Canada (review by David Joyce here). I have to confess that I was surprised by how much I learned from this book, including the fact that the Roman Rite Mass is the oldest of all the rites in Christendom, including the Eastern rites, such as the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. While commonly called the "Tridentine Rite," after the codification mandated by the Council of Trent and promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, the Roman Rite actually has a history that is virtually seamless back to the codification of Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 590-604), and substantially back even further to liturgical books containing the Roman Canon of the Mass dating from the 4th century. Thus, of all the liturgical rites existing within Catholic tradition -- the Ukrainian, Melkite, Syrian, Armenian, Coptic, Chaldean, Byzantine, Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, etc. -- the oldest is the Roman Rite. The question, then, is: Where do Roman Rite Catholics worship? They've got to find an "indult" Mass somewhere, if they can find a diocese where the bishop is willing to give his permission. Ironic isn't it. It reminds me of the celebrations of "diversity" and "inclusiveness" that we witness at every turn, which is inclusive of everything but traditional family values, Judeo-Christian morals, the classic Western canon of literature in lit crit circles, the culture of DWEM's (Dead White European Males), Christianity, Catholic tradition, or, particularly in this case, the tradition of the Roman Rite.

The irony is that the "replacement" of the Roman Rite is nowhere envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document entitled, "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). The Novus Ordo Missae, the New Mass, which was essentially the work of the radical liturgical revision-ist, Annibale Bugnini (pictured left), who masterminded it's "replacement" of the Roman Rite -- something, again, nowhere envisioned, let alone mandated, by Vatican II. What Vatican II calls for is the "reform" of the Roman Rite, which assumes both its continued existence and its reform, not a "replacement" of it, which is what we have in the Novus Ordo.

This means, as Mole points out, that the liturgical movement in the Western Church today divides into three branches today: 1) the Ecclesia Dei , founded in 1964 for the preservation of the Roman Rite, and reconstituted in 1988 by the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei which Pope John Paul II issued that year; 2) the Sacrosanctum Concilium, based on the provisions of that document for the reform of the Roman Rite, represented by such movements as the Adoremus Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, and 3) the Novus Ordo, which was nowhere envisioned by Vatican II, but has become, since Pope Paul VI's controversial promulgation of the New Mass in 1970, a de facto movement in view of establishing a new rite (one cannot call the Novus Ordo an established rite since there is little about it that is established, as attested by the continual ongoing tinkering with aspects of the liturgy, and ongoing debates about extraordinary eucharistic ministers, female altar servers, standing vs. kneeling during the eucharistic prayers, etc.).

It is also of note that, while the Concilium (the predecessor of the current Congregation for Divine Worship) precipitously plunged ahead with its plans for the Novus Ordo, all three Cardinal Prefects of Faith (Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Francis Seper, and Joseph Ratzinger) have expressed profound reservations and disapproval of the way the Pauline "reform" (the Novus Ordo) has been carried out. Cardinal Ratzinger (pictured left) describes himself as "thunderstruck" by the promulgation of Paul VI's Missal in 1970. "Nothing similar has ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy," he declared. The revision of the Roman Rite mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium was, in Mole's words: "consigned to oblivion by an onrush of extremely radical change inititated by a worldwide complex of national and supranational liturgical bodies. At its apex was teh Roman Consilium, headed by Annibale Bugnini, the bureaucratic genius whom the Pope had made the chief artisan of his reform. This vast establishment ... engaged in a deluge of utterly unprecedented change, all of which was foisted on the faithful under the false pretext that it was sanctioned by Vatican II." (p. 72) Ratzinger's reaction appears in his autobiography, published in German in 1996. An Italian version appeared the following year unter the title La mia vita. The ominous phrase, "damni estremamente gravi" ("extremely grave damage") leaps out on p. 112, in the chapter covering the years 1969-1976, when he occupied a chair of theology in Regensburg. Ratzinger's concern is that Bugnini's Novus Ordo has created a "rupture" in liturgical tradition, causing grave damage to the faithful. He concludes that it is "dramatically urgent" that there be a reawakening of consciousness in the Church to the true nature of the liturgy and of its historical unity and unbroken continuity throughout the ages. There must be a disposition, in his words, "to perceive Vatican II not as a rupture but as a moment of evolution." (La Mia Vita, p. 112)

[See also The Roman Rite: Voice of the Traditional Mass Movement in Canada, edited by Fr. John Mole; excerpts from the Introduction to Fr. Mole's Whither the Roman Rite? here; and his analysis of the "Assult on the Roman Rite" at Catholic.net]