ByzTn,
What a naughty summary.
The NO issue has flared up here before; there seems to be a desire among RC NO critics that there ought to be some common bond between them and EC's centered on some yearning for traditionalism. When this bond doesn't form they are frustrated.
But they miss the point. First, what familiarity ought one expect that EC's have with RC practices? It is a denial of our identity - even a step-parent syndrome - to expect that EC's ought to be aware, involved, and acutely concerned with RC liturgics. In fact, an EC would more likely opt to be particularly reserved on such matters - doing to others as we would have them do unto us. And we are decidely disinterested in RC's having an opinion on what we should be doing liturgically.
One opinion, however, that in our traditionalism is held fast, is the idea that since we are talking about Liturgy and Eucharist, then whatever is said must be said with an awesome cognizance of that fact. Glib assertions grate.
We have had lenghthy discussions about our own liturgy - right down to details of syntax, IIRC. But the whining about the NO never has much traction here.
The reasons really should be obvious, but are strangely missed by some visitors and brief sojourners. We are not a refugee camp. We are not some traditionalist theme park. We are our churches, as we been from the earliest times.
