I will agree, however, that the priest facing the people--is not the greatest idea.
So? People may still receive on the tongue if they wish. As I tell people--if you like to receive Communion on the tongue--go for it. No one stops people who like to receive on the tongue from doing so.
Right--but the priest muttering in Latin when people could not hear him and when they could barely see what he was doing---truly conveys the sacrificial character of the Mass. People praying rosaries while the Mass is going on--becasue they can barely see or hear the priest and what he is doing--right--that really conveys the sacrificial aspect of the Mass.
No it isn't. The priest offers the Mass, yes, but we unite our spiritual sacrifices to that of the priest and it becomes our Mass. There is a sense in which the people celebrate with the priest.
I can't speak to this. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, that was true in the disastrous ICEL translation of the 70's. The 2011 translation is far superior and recovered a lot of that.
And after Humane Vita was released, theologians objected for much of the same reasons. Shall we allow for contraception becasue a bunch of theologians made objections?
My point? Theologians aren't the teachers of the Faith. Their role is to present arguments for or against a position. The role of the bishops is to judge between the evidence, the arguments, etc, then render a decision.
But you are referring to abuses of the New Rite never intended by Vatican II.
Your argument is that the New Rite is bad--becasue there are abuses?