I don't like Fr. Ryan either. Understand, though, that Fr. Ryan was peritus at Vatican II and was convinced of a very liberal interpretation of Sanctosanctum Concilium. The sun is setting on the 1968 generation, and they're not going to go down without a fight.I wouldn't hate him, though. Think of our discontent as more like British economists thumbing their noses at Merkel and Sarkozy as they try to save the euro. Just as the EU power couple never figured that you can't create a de novo currency union without a fiscal union, The 68ers never realized that fully synthetic liturgy will require constant, and usually dysfunctional, innovation. The revolutionaries will not admit that a radically redesigned, fully vernacularized liturgy has systemic problems in both concept and execution. This reality does not excuse us from doctrinal and dogmatic union with the Church. However, I do think that Catholics can legitimately admit that the liturgical reform has serious disabilities. Get a bilingual new translation missal, or merely download Missale Romanum 2002 on pdf. I use a book reader to read the Latin during Mass. If the priest continuously and unabashedly deviates from the Latin-in-translation, don't go back to that parish. Real-time simul translation (hearing English, reading Latin, critiquing English) isn't really that hard, and actually fun.Fifty years in the history of the Church is proportionally much less than the ten years it took the euro to collapse under the debt of spendthrift nations. The Novus Ordo has a shelf-life, as perhaps the common currency. Fr. Ryan might not live to see the Ordinary Form's integration into the Roman liturgical patrimony and eventual demise. I know we will.
I find nothing to hate about him, although there are quite a few issues I would disagree with him about. Care to elaborate further?