Despite their bad laguage and condemnations, sometimes Tradsters get it right.

Case in point: Don't whitewash history - Paul VI was front and center ... Novus Ordo ...

You know - blame it on the Novus Ordo.  New Catholic contradicts Sandro Magister's claim the Bugnini did it and poor Pope Paul had little control over the so-called New Mass.  NC insists  that Paul VI was creator of the Novus Ordo and fully responsible for it.  He's not wrong.  (Ed. note: First the Mass wasn't created or recreated, it was reformed.  I'm not a liturgist, but I think that is a better way to express that.  It is Holy Mass after all and remains the Ordinary Form of Holy Mass in the Latin Rite.  No Pope since has decreed otherwise and has never ever condemned either Bugnini or one of his predecessors for having 'created' a 'bad Mass'.  That, despite what Katherine Emmerich allegedly wrote.)

Aside from the grave disrespect - which I omit, I totally agree with NC's statement below:

Saying Paul VI had little responsibility for the New Mass of Paul VI is like saying Louis XIV had no responsibility for Versailles, since he was not a mason and didn't actually build it with his hands.

Give us a break! Paul VI was the driving force of the liturgical reform. He was front and center the man responsible for it. - Rorate

The buck stops here.

As for the tears of Bl. Pope Paul the Monday after Pentecost, I've always called BS on that as well.  The Holy Father knew and approved the new Missal.  It's my understanding the anecdote originated from a book written by Bishop John Magee, who had been secretary to three Popes.  I find it hard to believe the Holy Father was taken by surprise, but I may be wrong.

The thing about the fault finders is that they can tell the truth about stuff, but they say it like it is a 'bad thing'.  Know what I mean?

Can't take this crap no more!