What the News Media Doesn't Know About the Catholic Church Could Fill a Book

Over @ Dad29 I came across a post about an article in a Madison newspaper about the growing desire for the Exttraordinary form of the Latin Rite (EF Mass in Madison: Is It Different There?) In the post he looks at some of the ways the article just doesn't get it right about the Catholic Church (Fr. Z also has an article in which he looks at some of those errors as well.) I won't repeat what they covered. But there is still plenty for me to point out how the author shows that he really doesn't know the facts about Catholic liturgy. (The post @ Dad29 has a link to the article or you can go directly to it here.)
"For centuries, this (Latin) was the only way Catholics around the world experienced Mass. Reforms ushered in by Vatican II in the 1960s largely eliminated Latin Mass ". 2 glaring errors in these 2 sentances alone.
1st of all before Vatican II Latin was NOT the only way Catholics experienced the Mass. For Catholics of the Eastern Catholic Churches a variety of languages were used for the Divine Litrurgy as the mass is called in the Eastern Rites. Those languages included Greek, Syriac, Armenian & Aramaic. & even what they call the Tridentine Mass ("Latin Mass, also known as the Tridentine Mass"), more accurately the Traditional Latin Mass/TLM)wasn't said everywhere in the world in Latin. In certain parts of Eastern Europe like Croatia & other Slavic areas it was said in Church Slavonic.
Next, the reforms of Vatican II did NOT largely eliminate the Latin Mass. As anyone who has been paying attention knows, the Novus Ordo is in Latin & has been translated into various languages. The Novus Ordo is 1 of the forms of the Latin Mass. All the reforms did was open up the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. Shortly after Vatican II many parts of the TLM were translated into English & used until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. A few other minor revisions were made. But nowhere did Vatican II eliminate the use of Latin. In fact its recent revival of usage in the Novus Ordo (NO) is actually going back to what Vatican II really said.
"For instance, a bishop once had to give permission for Latin Mass to be celebrated in his diocese." Not exactly true. Even though the Novus Ordo was usually said in the vernacular, no where was it forbidden for a priest to say it in Latin without permission of the Bishop. In fact the Sacramentary does include the Latin. The permission applied only to the TLM & even then exceptions were made. At the time the NO was promulgated, older priests were allowed to continue saying the TLM without any special permissiion.
Then there is the ridiculous. "The priest faces the altar, which traditionally faced East, the direction from which Catholics believe Christ will return." The priest still faces the altar. It is just that now it is positioned so that he is on 1 side & the people are on the other. & while ad orientum was the prefered orientation, not all Churches were built so that the priest faced East. My home parish in Oelwein had the priest facing West. So did the DBQ Cathedral. In Hazelton he faced North & in E DBQ & 1 Church in DBQ he faced South.
But even more ridiculous is this: "This means the priest has his back to the people, which traditionalists view as appropriate, like a general leading his troops." A general leading the troops?????? Where on Earth did the author come up with that. The priest was never compared to a general. He isn't leading the troops, he is taking the place of Christ & offering up a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. Not a new sacrifice, but the original sacrifice in an unbloody manner.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. While it is nice that they are paying some attention to what is going on in the media. it would be better if they bothered to get things right about the catholic Church in genearl & what is going on liturgically in particular.