Mixology, with Spirits of Vatican Two, (what proof are they?)

Much, and not all of it kind, is being made of the kicking and screaming of American Catholicism's Ancien Régime.
(Ooops, I guess that using "kicking and screaming" as a descriptor of their tantrums is unkindness.)
But in all seriousness, as the name-tags that say "Reactionary" and "Progressive" are slid across the table at the Endless LitCom Meeting that the Catholic Church in the Anglophone world has morphed into, and traded, while I have read accusations of gloating, I really haven't noticed any from anyone of whom civil or mature behavior might have been expected.
But I have seen some startlingly whiny or vitriolic reactions from people of whom I had thought better.

This gentleman falls into none of these categories as I had never heard of him before, but I did feel bad for him, for the piling on that followed one of his posts, or rather, that followed a posting about one of his posts.

He had to have known that calling something that is beloved by zealous, energetic people, however great or small their actual numbers, explicilty "silly," "offensive," "undecorous," "unintelligible," "immune from the fundamental principles of good liturgy," and implicitly encumbered with needless ritual, incomprehensible, and fruity, (that is the subtext of the wide-spread mockery of vesting and vestments -- real men don't wear lace, ya know?) would be a red flag to bulls.

So you'd think he would have made a little more certain to get his facts straight, ya know?
"[The old] rite that virtually ignores the Hebrew Bible on Sundays and feasts"?
He really should take a look at a Gradual.
(And don't get me wrong, I am an ardent supporter of the expanded Lectionary, if not of the 3 year cycle, but sometimes the consecutive OT readings on weekdays leave us with a pericope that despites seeming endless, isn't all that edifying, never gets to a valuable point -- I'm gonna go out on a limb here and risk being raked over the coals for it, but every verse of the Bible is not equally valuable.)

"[The new rite] requires a homily on the scriptures"?
He really should steal a glance at the GIRM.

And it seems a bit of special pleading to hold up in comparison to the old rite which he despises, (I don't think that is too strong a word,) some idealized Ordinary rite with just is not available to too many of us on the ground.

"[The Pauline rite does] not require much explanation."
The why, why, why is it so hard to find a Mass where the celebrant does not give endless explanatory remarks by way of introduction to the various rites? (And now, we all join our voices to give glory to God..., Let's join in our family prayer, taught to us by the Lord Himself, such a beautiful prayer, Our Father... , Good morning, and isn't it a lovely morning, we're all here worship together, to be "Church," to remind ourselves that we are one in Christ as we start, in the name of the...)

But I'm still sorry for him.

In a more recent post answering his critics, he had this to say

Someone else mentioned the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I think any rite that does not provide full, conscious and active participation is a candidate for overhauling, following the principles outlined by the bishops’ Vatican II magisterial teaching.

Well, at least he's upfront about it, and consistent -- but it still surprises me that so many putative lovers of ecumenism seem to have contempt for the rites of the Church's "other lung."

And I say all of this, as a member of Team Ordinary Form, (do I feel the need to remind my readers, or myself?) though one who yearns for what has been called a "mutual enrichment" of the two Latin Rites.

For that matter, I think the Latin and Eastern Rites could stand a bit of judicious intermixing...

But I doubt that is to be.

I don't get to write the rites.