*Both. I could, but won't, take pedantic issue with some of Fr. Z's comments.
No. I absolutely loved the homily.
I know and agree with the vast majority of your commentary and many of the points you raised are ones I have -continually argued.
I do believe I have been robbed of my spiritual heritage in the Liturgy due not to the Church or the legitimate reform but due to the protestants in Fiddlbacks within the Church who are every bit as distatseful and repugnant to me 6as the Protestants in Fiddlebacks in the schism.
I think those whose poverty of humilty has been obscured by their wealth of pride have taken advantage of a particular epoch to advance their personal opinions,predelictions, preferences etc all to the detriment of the Liturgy.
It has been more than 40 years since the end of the Council and I am still waiting for a Liturgy that would please the Church Fathers who desired a reform of the liturgy.
Tahnkfully,God has Graced me with an amsing amount of patience re the matter :)
I am happy to hear that you loved the Ecumenical Patriarch's homily.
Regarding Fr. Z's comments: notice that my seeming-quirky insistence on 'Latin' as a designation for your church is not so odd or obstinate. Fr. Z, when he puts words the the EP's mouth in his comments, scrupulously observes the usage.
I suspect Fr. Z's take on the import of the Patriarch's remarks is both correct, and also in agreement with Pope Benedict's views on liturgics, so you may manage to get back what you were robbed of if his papacy lasts long enough, or he has a successor of the same mold. May God grant it!