Was it wise to go from this:
The Entrance of the Gospel procession:
The Byzantine Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Holy of Holies, isn't there a clearer correlation of this to the Tridentine Mass? (Go to minute 4 for the actual chanted consecration)
From The Evolution of the Byzantine “Divine Liturgy”
By Fr.Robert Taft S. J.
To the Westerner onlooker, perhaps the most striking quality of the rite that has evolved from the Eucharist of the Great Church is its opulent ritualization, a ceremonial splendor heightened by its marked contrast to the sterile verbalism of so much contemporary Western liturgy,(our reformed Latin Rite) where worship often seems just words. The Byzantine Mass ritual is structured around a series of appearances of the sacred ministers from behind the iconostasis or sanctuary barrier (of which the altar rail in the Latin Rite is/was a remnant). The most important of these appearances are the two solemn introits. The minor introit or “Little Entrance” of the Word service, after the opening rite of the enarxis, is a procession with the gospel, said to symbolize Christ’s coming to us in the Word. The other, major or “ Great Entrance” at the beginning of the Eucharistic part of the service, right after the intercessory prayers following the readings, is a procession bearing to the altar the gifts of bread and wine prepared before the beginning of the liturgy. It is said to prefigure Christ’s coming to us in the sacrament of His Body and Blood. Both these fore-shadowings are fulfilled in to later appearances, the procession of the deacon with the gospel lectionary to the ambo for the reading; and the procession of the celebrant to distribute in communion the consecrated gifts, after they have been blessed in the Eucharistic prayer.
Most of the ritual is taken up with such comings and goings. But liturgy is not ceremonial. It is prayer. And so these ceremonies are the ritual expression of a text. In the present-day Byzantine rite the liturgical formulae comprise two distinct levels. While the deacon stands outside the doors of the iconostasis chanting the litanies and leading the people in prayer, within the sanctuary a parallel service is proceeding. Through the open doors of the icon screen the altar is distantly visible, brilliantly lighted and enveloped in clouds of incense, impressing upon the worshipper a sense of mystery and sacredness. Before this altar, within the holy of holies stands the celebrant, his back to the people as he faces the East, reciting in silence the priestly prayers. When the priest has to bless or address the people he comes out. Inside he is talking to God.
My comments: In the centuries of organic development that led to the Tridentine Mass much of what is in the 1962 Roman Missal's ritual and symbolism evolved in much the same way as what Father Taft writes of the Byzantine Rite's organic development: "This ritual pattern is the result of centuries of slow evolution, in which many rites, at first added for a specific purpose later lost their original scope, then decomposed under the pressure of later changes and additions, acquiring in the process new mystagogic interpretations often far removed from their actual historical roots."
The Reform of the Tridentine Rite into a "new order" stripped it of centuries of organic development and symbolic meaning given to practical ritual. The "mystagogic interpretations" of the elaborate rituals of the Tridentine Mass were denigrated, mocked and removed out of the misguided desire of liturgical academics and elitists whose untoward desire for "noble simplicity" and the removal of "useless repetition" dismissed centuries of organic development in favor of the 1960's mantra of "if its new and modern" it is improved.
If that isn't modern eyes looking at historical tradition from a sterile point of view, I don't know what is! For example in the seminary we were told that the incense was used not for ritual purposes to begin with, but as "air freshener" for the fowl smells of people and livestock in the great cathedrals that were also market places. The washing of the priest's hands was purely practical since after receiving the offerings of livestock, his hands were dirty. It was only later that these actions were given spiritual, symbolic meanings, what Taft calls a "mystagogic interpretation" which the Byzantine's appreciate and would NEVER discard because these "mystagogic developments" were somehow considered by modernists as illegitimate accretions.
Even the priest facing the altar in an eastward fashion (his back to the congregation), somewhat removed from the nave, higher than the congregation and cordoned off by an altar railing was mocked by the reformers who were trying to devolve the liturgy back to the home churches of the pre-Constantine era. These organic developments in great cathedrals and churches were decried as clerical subterfuge to disenfranchise the laity and remove the liturgy from them, even going so far as to build rood screens that only had doors to the sanctuary outside of which the laity were remanded to remain. There is no such negativity about the iconostasis in the Eastern Rite, where only the clergy are allowed.
The Orthodox and the Eastern Rite of the Church understand clearly the symbolism of the holy of holies and the sacramental role of the ordained priesthood that is exclusive to him. In other words there is no post-Vatican II erasing of the unique role of the ordained priest or making the laity into ordained priests during the liturgy as though there are no distinctions between clergy and laity. Our post-Vatican II Latin Rite modern architecture for churches betrays again this "devolvement" of even the ordained ministry of the priest and his unique role in the liturgy which in and of itself also had centuries of organic development that post Vatican II liturgical and sacramental theologians denigrated in their apologetic for radical change in the Catholic Church!
In other words, the post-Vatican II reformers of the Mass had and have a great disdain for the organic development of the Liturgy of the West up until Vatican II. They wanted and want a liturgy, a modern liturgy, with sterile verbalism and reduced ritualism that approximates the iconoclasm of the Protestant reformers' version of the Lord's Supper, closer in detail and ritual to what Jesus did at the Last Supper in a home setting and at a family table. Post Vatican II liturgical development is inspired by puritanical sensibilities and disdain for "Romeish, popeish, European cultural accretions" imposed upon the liturgy over the centuries.
At the same time they wanted to make large and grand the signs of the liturgy, dunking for baptism, bread and wine that was more like what one would eat and drink at a table meal in the home where the preoccupation of the various signs made them into gods themselves rather than pointing to the hidden God under sacramental signs, which in the Tridentine period were sober and noble in simplicity, obscuring the sign in order to ritually point to the One hidden who alone should be adored!
The way to recover our Latin Rite's organic development that occurred over centuries is to recover the ethos of the 1962 Roman Missal, allow for some vernacular and look at the parallels of the Byzantine understanding of its highly symbolic liturgy and realize that in the Latin rite before the reform we had the same symbolism, especially with the altar railing, the elevated ad orientem altar and the canon prayed quietly (although the post-Vatican II recovery of the chanted canon accomplishes in an audible way what the quiet canon accomplishes silently, a sense of the holy of holies!) It wouldn't take much to have an organically developed Tridentine Mass with very little revision that the laity can understand in a positive light respecting the unique role of the ordained priest as he enters the holy of holies to pray on their behalf, to be a priest for them as Latin Rite Catholics should understand the role of the ordained priest!
As well, what we have recovered in the reformed liturgy, that of the Gospel procession and the procession of the offerings of the people can be given the ritual significance found in the Eastern Liturgy also. This is true of the universal prayer (Prayers of the Faithful) after the Creed as well.
So what are my humble suggestions for the recovery of liturgical tradition and centuries of organic development in the Latin Rite?
Have a vernacular Mass using the revised Roman Missal, but the 1965 missal's slight revisions to the order of the Mass and its rubrics. Keep the modern calendar which the additions of the "gesima" Sundays, Passiontide and the After Epiphany and After Pentecost designations. Maintain the modern lectionary but evaluate and make changes to that lectionary and make adaptations to allow for an added one year cycle that is the Tridentine Lectionary for Sundays.
Eliminate some of the options for the Eucharistic Prayer and mandate that it be prayed quietly if spoken but with the preference of it being chanted and the entire Mass being chanted with the vernacular clearly an option that should be viewed as an organic development.
We need to recover the plan of the Tridentine sanctuary although the Liturgy of the Word and the priest's presiding chair should be what the modern liturgy had recovered and that too should be viewed as organic development with symbolic and ritual meaning.
In practice, this means the recovery of ad orientem at an elevated altar decorated in the Tridentine tradition, and altar railing where Holy Communion is brought in procession to the laity who receive by intinction the Body and Blood of our Lord kneeling in humble adoration to receive their Savior hidden under these sacramental signs.