Once again, Fr Z has a post that plants a seed of thought. His discussion about changing Mass texts is leads to other thoughts. If we allow for conservatives to change texts in the Mass, why not allow for liberals to do so? We all know how insipid the "translation" (really a paraphrase) of the Mass into English is. Any first year Latin student could probably make hundreds of corrections in an hour's time. That said, if we allow for us to correct the translation of the Latin, why can't we allow for the liberals to come up with their own translation that is devoid of any masculine reference to God?
An interesting phenomenon I have found is among those devoted to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, who feel free to depart from the Missal of Blessed John XXIII to pick up abrogated customs from prior editions of the Missal. The rational usually goes like this: well you see, Rubricarum Instructum never fully got implemented in this country before the Council and the series of new Missals that came in the 60s.....
So, they decide on a liturgical era that they consider to be the apex of liturgy -- sort of like the reformers did. The only difference is which year they consider to be the best. Is it the 47 Missal, the 58? They think it's nifty to say Benedicamus Domino in Lent and Advent, so they stick that in. They like the second Confiteor before Communion, so they stick that in. Are we going to start bringing back the Broadstoles?
As Fr Z always says, Say the black, do the red. I can't see how it's any different for one Priest to "retain" the Benedicamus Domino in penitential seasons than it is for another to omit the hand-washing because he sees it as a meaningless gesture. Both have decided they know better than the Church how her liturgy should be celebrated. It's hard to argue immemorial custom in a place that started celebrating the Extraordinary Form any time after the promulgation of Rubricarum Instructum.