The Hermeneutic of Continuity (4th and last post)

But what of the doctrinal deficiency of the prayers of the OF? How can that very fundamental flaw be mended by your suggested methods of reform?

The problem with your approach is that it opens you to the criticism we traddies often make against trendies: that the Church states clearly that the individualisation of the rites to accord with personal preference is inadmissible. One thinks of sauce, geese and ganders.

You would be very interest, Father, at the work being done at St. Mary of the Seven Sorrows in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, in these United States. Ad orientem, Roman Canon only, silent offertory ... we haven't quite gotten Father to let the servers genuflect instead of bow when crossing the sanctuary, but we might get there.

The "Day One" program for a non-jarring N.O. reform would be easy: simply require everyone to tear out all the "optional" pages from the Missal: leave the Roman Canon and the most traditional option for the various other prayers (in some cases that's rather a tallest-midget contest, of course), and mail all the optional pages to the Congregation for Divine Worship for proper disposal.

After EP1 the next element to add to the OF would be Ad Orientem which is already allowed implicitly by the rubrics, plus also has the advantage that actions such as signing the hosts would be less obvious to those in the congregation looking for something to complain about.

Agree these can be kosher except for the offertory prayers (that is disobedience though not audible in my view). Benedict also said the Eucharistic prayer didn't always have to be said aloud. Anything after the dismissal is permitted as long as it is appropriate - some have added the Leonine prayers, others of course a Salve Regina or other sung prayer to Our Lady. How could the last gospel not be an appropriate post dismissal devotion? Arguably, one could even add the prayers at the altar BEFORE the beginning of Mass proper (I defer to you and others). The issue in the US is that all such things are frowned upon (e.g. see hysterical reactions to Ad Orientem) by most Bishops in dioceses and if brought to their attention by "Susan of the Parish Council", come down like a ton of bricks on said Priest for "pastoral correction" despite their legitimacy. In contrast to their hesitancy to come down on clear liturgical abuses such as ad libbing the prayers and other abuses well cataloged over the years. Sigh.

A wonderful idea for those priests that want to include more reverence in the the Mass. What are the faithful to do though, who are in parishes where the Novus Ordo Mass is said seemingly without reverence and where the priest adds his own words and mangles many other parts of the Mass.
I sometimes respond in Latin to said priest but all that seems to do is increase his anger.

the root of the problem with the NO Mass is that so much is left to the discretion of the Priest. No matter how reverent and beautiful Father Trad makes the NO at his parish, Fr Trendy or Fr Compliant who follow him a few years hence will undo all the good he has done.
The only real solutions are either an out right ban of the NO (not going to happen) or a real dedication to a proliferation of the Traditional Mass which will in due time displace the inferior NO Mass.
Saint Michael the Arch Angel defend us in battle....