Cardinal Sarah and the Liturgy of the West. Luckily Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians don't have this problem. Ad Orientum was never an issue in the East. It's simply accepted!. Most from the Western half, thinks it's turning their back on the people. Who cares about God!. Cardinal Sarah is right!.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...elebrating-mass-facing-east-this-advent/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...iests-from-celebrating-mass-ad-orientem/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/vatican-rejects-cardinal-sarahs-ad-orientem-appeal/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/july-15th-2016/we-can-have-it-both-ways/

Unfortunately, not all Eastern Catholics hold fast to their heritage and Patristic Tradition. The Syro-Malabar are restoring ad orientem, however YMMV. Maronites seem to have abandoned it altogether. Chaldeans are hit or miss, more miss. Syriac Catholics are maybe, mostly not. Even some Armenian Catholic Churches abandoned, although most retain. So pathetic.

I believe the Syro-Malankara Catholics always worship ad-orientum. Maybe Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholics as well. Maronites are at the opposite end. I have never seen ad-orientum from them.

From videos I have seen the Copts and Ethiopians are still ad orientum.

The Coptic Catholic parish in Los Angeles, CA used to have liturgy facing the people. It is now ad orientem.

Resurrection Coptic Catholic Church celebrates facing the people as this video shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZBoD2uvCn8

Ethiopian Catholic liturgy facing the people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoyHkKg9Wj8

I hate to sound sarcastic, but when you have a Magisterium, institutions galore, etc. is liturgy going to be really that important?

Not that I'm pushing for what you mentioned, but I feel I ought to play "devil's advocate" and ask, Is it any worse (intrinsically) for e.g. Maronites to have liturgy versus populum than for Latin Catholics to do so?

Not sure what you mean - the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, etc all have institutions, et al. and generally do care about Liturgy (of course, there are exceptions).

Well, technically, no. However, if the Latin bishops can unashamedly explain away their heritage, Patristic teaching and Liturgy - who am I to object? They are a self-governing Church. However, I share an affinity with the Maronite Syriacs, and out of a sense of spiritual brotherhood feel more attached. In addition, the Maronites (and others) have sister Churches to look toward. Unlike the Latins, there are viable, living Churches that we can see unnecessary and destructive deviation from.

Your first few sentences express my own feelings on the matter pretty well. But not:

Now, I'm not enamored of the Roman Catholic Church; but if I didn't even see it as a viable living church I'd have to completely change my religious outlook.

I've been misunderstood. My statement is not regarding the viability of the Latin Church, rather it has to do with the Latins having no mirror-sister-churches that can be compared with to see deviation. Unlike our Churches, the Latins have no real non-Catholic counterparts - of course, they should simply look to their own rich Patristic Tradition and those of the various Latin Orders and Anglican Ordinariate.

Oh I see. (I figured I must have been missing something, but didn't know what.)