There is a Latin phrase: repetita iuvant…. repeated things help… or… repetition of things helps you you to remember them.
In discussions about the older, traditional form of Mass or about the position of the altar in relation to the priest and congregation, repetita iuvant. We mustn’t forget that some people are new to the discussions and don’t yet know the facts. Also, liberals in particular conveniently forget facts. So… we should repeat them.
From a reader:
I am 59 years old and like the current liturgy. I was an alter boy and served with both old and new liturgies. I prefer contemporary Mass music but am okay with chants and some of the 15th to 19th century music that is in our hymnal. Some of each of these types of music is good quality and some is bad.
It is fine with me that some like the Mass from, I believe, 1570. However, I do not think we all need to go back to that Mass.
Our church, built in 1889, is built on a corner, so it probably could have been built in a different alignment. The people face south and the priest faces north. I am sure that any true prayers of the congregation and the priest are heard just fine by God.
First, I note that this has more to do with what his preferences and likes are concerned than perhaps about what the Church’s liturgy requires. It is perfectly okay to like some things more than others. But out liturgical choices are not to be grounded solely in our likes, which are not only subjective, but shifting. Thus, it is nice that he is "okay" with chants. The Church says that Gregorian chant has pride of place.
It is great that the writer "likes" the current liturgy. His liking it, however, is not our standard of measure. There are those who don’t like it, to one degree or another.
Also, "some like the Mass from, I believe, 1570". If he knew that date, he probably knew a little more besides. But let that pass. The 1962 Missale Romanum is now in use, not the missal of 1570.
When the Holy Father first celebrated ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel, liberals rushed to point out that, gasp, he was not in fact facing geographical East! Imagine! They conveniently forget that while geographical eastward orientation was important to the ancients, when we speak of East now, we are speaking of an ideal whereby priest and people together are "oriented" in the same direction (geographical East ideally), toward the Lord who will return (from the East, as the ancients believed). Liturgical "East" doesn’t have to be East on the compass, though that is great when it happens!
Finally, we know that God hears our prayers. I wonder if we hear our prayers. I suspect not, otherwise we would have pressed for a new translation a long time ago. We hope to derive something more from Mass than the nebulous suspicion, or even confident assurance, that God heard our prayers.