Over at PTB, commentator Scott Smith reminds us:

C. S. Lewis famously said, and very truly:
We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

The Lewis maxim is much more refined thinking than HHF's quote:

"You cannot turn back, we have to always go forward, always forward and who goes back is making a mistake,"

This sort of well-meaning, good intentioned but casual thinking and utterance elicits "huzzahs" from the populace, but they're not getting, as Paul Harvey said, "the rest of the story." Comprehension should not be held up as a criterium, much less an ideal, for the efficacy of the Divine Liturgy. One could argue quite convincingly that the intentionality of Latin as a sacral language ought to simultaneously communicate sacred mystery for which we long, and spurs cognition towards a greater understanding of the purpose and nature of our treasured rites as well.

"However, the Pope noted that there are priests and bishops who speak of a "reform of the reform." Some of them are "saints" and speak "in good faith." But this "is mistaken".

(Pope Francis' address during his annual meeting with the clergy of Rome, Feb. 19, 2015)

“It was courageous of the Church to come closer to the people through the liturgical reform. You can’t turn back. It is a mistake to turn back."

(Pope Francis' homily on March 7, 2015, at Roman parish of Ognisanti in Via Appia Nuova, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the mass Paul VI celebrated here on 7 March 1965.)

What is our Holy Father saying to us?

Benedictgal, you might find this interesting. (Of course, I do not vouch in any way for the authenticity of this report.)

Here are my less elliptical thoughts on the subject http://www.chantcafe.com/2015/03/forward.html

So "forward" means what--1960?

But wasn't VII about "returning to the sources"? And which sources? And what time in history? And whose history?

It assumes that some change is beneficial to promoting the highest goods.

More problematically, it assumes we know both what the highest good is and what actions or changes would best serve it. Progressivism is extremely arrogant.

Or, as a famous South American Archbishop definitely did not say in a prayer he definitely did not write:
We are workers, not master builders.

I find it a curious coincidence that while our Holy Father is urging the Church ever onward and warning that going back is a mistake ["We must always go forward, those who go backward are mistaken."] two preeminent cardinals are invoking tradition as the foundation of both Catholic liturgy and theology. Of most significance is that one of those cardinals is the head of the CDF, Cardinal Gerhard Muller---not generally considered to be of a traditional mindset, at least not up until recently.

And yet, here it is: The Summorum Pontificum Conference in Rome this June will feature these addresses by Cardinals Burke and Muller on June 13:

Introduction by Cardinal Burke, “Tradition as the Foundation of Catholic Liturgy.”

Introduction by His Eminence Gerhard Ludwig Card. Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: “Tradition as the Basic Principle of Catholic Theology.”

In addition, Cardinal Walter Brandmuller will celebrate Benediction that evening, and Cardinal Velasio De Paolis will celebrate a Solemn Pontifical High Mass on Sunday, June 14. Bishop Athanasius Schneider will also give an address on "The Treasure of the Altar: the Ineffable Majesty of Holy Communion.

Now that's what I call an all-star lineup. : )

Progress, apprehended most verily, is the movement from one place to another. Betterment is not implicit, only movement. It is quite possible to progress from, shall we say, a certain very high place to a certain very low place! From a better place to a worse one. To heterodoxy from orthodoxy, or vice versa. Then there is 'regress', which would mean returning to a place which one had left, which was worse (or better) than that to which one had 'progressed'. Then there is 'change', which is what we have had for the last fifty years, some of it good, some of it not at all good, but all of it a progression from where we were to where we are; a progression which has not been totally (partially, but not totally) good or bad. Which is to say that there is merit in the NO, but most of its champions are not aware of (or are utterly opposed to) what those merits really are. Likewise, the EF represents progress in that it has become a factor of our progression to where we are and where we are going. Some would, doubtless, call it 'regress'. However it remains a belatedly redeemed facet of our progress. It is a threat only to those paranoids with shallow roots. (Not that I am an apologist for it. I'm not. But I do believe in fair play... and, am deeply thankful for the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, another step in our progression.)

P.S. I may be dead wrong on this, but I would tentatively suggest with all due respect that I don't believe it helps correct the misperception so many have of the Latin Mass that it is foreign, or "something odd, over there, far away" when proponents of the EF do not include vocal participation in their definition of full, conscious and active participation at the usus antiquior.

I read an otherwise splendid and informative article on this subject at NLM recently and was disappointed that no mention was made of the fact that the people can participate by means of responses and the chanting of the ordinary and antiphons, although there was a beautiful exposition on interior participation and the increased opportunity for attentiveness and the many occasions for making bodily gestures at the EF.

Perhaps it was assumed that vocal participation is also included, but making no mention of it was, in my opinion, an unfortunate oversight, esp. since the point of the article was that there are more opportunities for full, active and conscious participation at the EF Mass than at the OF, which is very true, esp. when you consider the many potential opportunities for the faithful to sing at an EF Missa Cantata.

I have seen this omission many times before in articles about participatio actuosa at the EF, and it seems that in the current atmosphere where more attention is being focused on demonstrating the "negative" and alien aspects of the traditional liturgy, it might be a good idea to begin emphasizing the similarities and parallels possible between both forms of the Roman rite and the potential for mutual enrichment between the two.

It must be such fun knocking about Rome, Kathy! What church do you usually go to for Mass?

Sorry for the tangent here, but Rome sounds like so much fun: beautiful churches, great food and great coffee. What is your favorite Italian specialty?

My questions is, Are they going to have an 100th Anniversary ?

JulieColl ...ok, so It may be a tangent, but your right, visiting Rome sounds like fun.... even if only via live webcam .

http://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam.html