When you say that it doesn’t help anything, I think you are wrong. My reading of this blog exposes me to views that I don’t always agree with. My posting responses on this blog exposes the writers to thoughts they don’t always agree with. My hope is that both grow through the process.

I know I have.

And I have been to a celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form once before, and I intend to go again. I agree with the Holy Father’s decision to allow the Mass in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form. It’s when certain factions try to impose regulations on the Ordinary Form which are not in the spirit of what the Second Vatican Council intended that I worry. And the “spirit of Vatican II” is not something that was just created by a bunch of radical hippies. Read Gaudium et Spes.

If you would like us to show you the proof of your heresy, we will. But I’m not sure anyone who writes for this blog is willing to ever allow any opposition to their liberal/”progressive” ideas. I guess your arguments wont stand up to scrutiny against the truth.

I’ve hardly been a “observer” at any of the Extraordinary Form Masses I’ve attended in the past. I’m usually praying the same prayers as the priest, making the words of the Rite my own, in unity with those around me who are praying the same. But to each their own interpretation. Have you been to a E.F. Mass before?

As to the New Mass translations-consider the translation something like the RSV-a more literal and clear statement of the theological precepts in the Mass prayers (really, the current translation is awful). Oddly enough, the issues you seem to take with the translation aren’t much of a problem to Episcopals and Anglicans, many of whom are quite progressive, whose translations of the text are similar to the New translations coming down the wire (et cum spiritu tuo, anyone?).

So, I don’t see the liturgical reform to connect with your larger issue of Church reform. In fact, it seems more progressive to allow people the opportunity to worship in whatever method they want-there are RC churches now that don’t stick to the Missal, the new translations won’t change that one bit.

How boring life would be if we never broke bread with those that disagreed with us.

Side note – it is also my understanding that there is nothing in the Novus Ordo that requires the priest to face the congregation. In fact, I’ve heard that Benedict XVI prefers facing the east because of the sacred nature of the direction, and it better reflects the priest, in persona christi, as head of the congregation making their sacrificial presentation to God. I think people who assume that the priest having his back to the congregation is some sort of spiritual snub are mistaken.

One of the things that has drawn me back to being a practicing catholic in the past two years or so is that the Church has an ancient memory. What seems like evolving cultural norms to us are really just the same problems being rehashed over the ages, from the Church’s perspective. There are some that argue that the cultural norms of today’s society are more akin to those of ancient Rome or Greece, particularly in regards to sexual morality. Others claim that we are entering a Post-Christian western world, even though it tends to resemble pre-christian morality.

My point is – history repeats itself. The more things change, the more they stay the same. One thing that doesn’t change is God. God can’t change or contradict Himself. Jesus, God, instituted the sacraments, including Holy Orders and Marriage, therefore they cannot change.

Homosexual relations and non-christian female priests were contemporary realities of Jesus’ physical time on Earth (not that that really would matter, as God, Jesus knows all). If these were meant to be blessed realities of christianity, Jesus, God, who can do anything, surely would have.

Is it really possible that the Magisterium can trump God for almost 2000 years? That’s a conspiracy theory that makes the Birthers sound rational.