"the ability of a central bank to stabilise inflation using its short-term nominal interest rate tool" makes the world go round, you think?

This has been stuck in my craw for a while now, from JW Mason:

I don’t think a “quantity of money” has been an important part of orthodox macoreconomics or any major heterodox school for many, many years.

Enter Cecchetti, Mohanty and Zampolli (2011), page 2:

As modern macroeconomics developed over the last half-century, most people either ignored or finessed the issue of debt. With few exceptions, the focus was on a real economic system in which nominal variables – prices or wages, and sometimes both – were costly to adjust. The result, brought together brilliantly by Michael Woodford in his 2003 book, is a logical framework where economic welfare depends on the ability of a central bank to stabilise inflation using its short-term nominal interest rate tool. Money, both in the form of the monetary base controlled by the central bank and as the liabilities of the banking system, is a passive by-product.

Money is a passive by-product, they say. Passive in 2003, perhaps. But money was no longer passive just a few years later, when interest rates hit the zero bound and the demand for safe assets skyrocketed.