It may be that Benedict envisioned chances to the EF, but I would suspect that it would be a very brave pope who would make such changes.
a goodly number of people who prefer the EF would go along with changes, assuming they were not very much (and I sincerely doubt the Church will ever see the EF in the vernacular as a regular practice, Latin being one of the main issues people who support the EF speak about). There appears, however, to be a significant number of people who would come close to a meltdown were an changes proposed; and I include both those who attend SSPX chapels, and those who don’t but seem to be very sympathetic to them.
As to facing liturgical East, that is already possible in the OF, and practiced primarily in its avoidance… and again, I really wonder that anyone wants to take that issue on, with the exception of the few who continue to comment about it. And considering this pope is not one of them…
What you write evokes interesting memories for me. It reminds me of what was said to me once at a clergy meeting a very long time ago, which I have found to have a great amount of truth…“for the Americans, if a document did not say you had to keep something they got rid of it while for us in Europe, if the document didn’t say you had to change something, we kept it.”
I can’t tell you how many times over the decades I have said Mass not facing the people. It wholly and entirely depended upon what the church or chapel allowed. If there was (or reasonably could be) an altar that was free standing and permitted celebration toward the people, we would. If the altar did not and the structure did not led itself to some accommodation, we celebrated
ad absidem with either a stand or server holding the missal so that whatever could be said facing the people could be said thus and what required the altar was said there.
I can’t remember one time when someone said they wanted to be at one place over another based on whether the priest was able to face the people or not during the anaphora – and the concept is very strange to me that someone would be so invested in that element.
There was no underlying ideology to things like that, actually. One way was not more “traditional” or “conservative” or whatever term one wishes…it was the
novus ordo liturgy being celebrated as the sanctuary’s layout accommodated.
The concept of saying Mass “facing the altar” makes no sense to me…I am facing the altar in whichever direction I am standing…it is in front of me. Still less does Mass facing the tabernacle or “facing God” have significance. I am not offering the consecrated elements to the tabernacle and I am facing God, whichever point of the compass my face is directed toward.
In the same way, vestments were not conservative or liberal…they weren’t progressive or traditional. Roman vestments tended to be more old school and Belgian and Dutch vestment makers tended to be more a la vogue or avant garde. I’ve worn one one day and the other the next – and neither were an ideological statement. Whether one was using a Gothic vestment or a Roman vestment, each had their origins in the past and might have some stylistic aspect that was contemporary…or not.
Churches already built had, of course, their architectural elements in terms of statuary and side altars and communion rails. (Some people would still kneel at the rail for communion but most would receive standing.) Newer churches would have very different architectural styles and elements – as did our secular buildings, too. We typically would not try to make something from the late 20th century look like it was built in the 16th or the 13th or the 8th century.
