Instead of having the New Rite, why don't priests just say the Old Rite in English? - that is, English of an Elizabethan/Cranmerian style, or if not, at least a style of English that is at least superficially removed from that of the pubs and the streets (Vulgar Latin was spoken in Roman brothels too)...slippery slope here though, vis-à-vis, the idea of a ''liturgical language'' - what would be the point of Latin if the Old Rite were in fact in the mother tongue? Well, for that matter, what would be the point of Liturgy if the language of the Rite, which is fundamentally a ''mystery'' (a kind of ''sacrament'' of its own right - not that I account Liturgy as an ''eighth'' sacrament, but it is the most important thing in the Church, the mediator of all Graces) were far removed from the ancestral, Sacramental, civilised tongue, the language of lore and culture? Does Latin ''adorn'' Liturgy and make it wonderful, or vice versa? Or does this question have any value in liturgical dialectic at all? Where does understanding in the literal sense come into Liturgy? Is ''understanding'', taken to mean in the Scholastic ideal, really for the Christian man?
I think I am being over-bold in my questions about Liturgy, and very candid! But we must remember that Liturgy should never be discussed lightly, lest we lower ourselves to the likes of Bugnini. Liturgy is a matter to be thought about kneeling, and with a Domine, non sum dignus in the minds of those who discuss it. I sometimes think that Liturgy was never meant to be discussed about, just done (as a pious work, in charity and inspired by the Holy Ghost) out of the love of Christ, according to the rhythm of the Church's Kalendar...not out of imposition or Sabbatarianism.
In one of his letters, J.R.R Tolkien complained of people saying ''my subject'' - that is, the subject that they adorn or make their own, project their ideas onto, and thereby make utterly obscene. I see self-styled ''liturgists'' in this context - people who do greater harm to the Church than good, in the vanity of their minds. Were I introduced to someone, and they said they were a liturgist, I think I would say: ''I don't have any idea what that means. Do you mean to say that you put the greatest treasure trove of the Church upon an operating table, cut it open, remove bits here, add bits there according to your whim, and do other acts of gross violence to the Church? Or do you mean to say that you make a living out of an equally spurious and reprehensible 'analysis' of Liturgy?'' There should be no such thing as a ''liturgist,'' nor other such unfortunate terms as ''liturgical theology'' etc. And as for ''trained'' liturgists!