The following from St.Justin Martyr is the earliest description of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
Of course since the Second Vatican Council, liturgical theologians especially in the 1970's thought that the Church should recover the earliest expressions of the Mass as described in this video. That meant forgoing the subsequent organic development that occurred over the centuries and negating that development as things that were accidents of history or of such a cultural nature for the times in which these occurred that they were to be considered as outdated.
Yet, they would not apply that "outdatedness" to the primitive ways in which the Holy Mass were first experienced in its infancy.
Those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with all its organic and maintained cultural developments over the centuries have every right to appreciate and have this form of the Mass.
Those who prefer the revised order of Mass since Vatican II have every right to have it as it is meant to be celebrated according to the books. They have every right to noble simplicity, some vernacular, a revised lectionary and approved liturgical ministries for the laity.
Those who prefer the rites of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have every right to have those rites too with all their cultural accretions over the centuries.
Where clergy and laity go wrong is trying to convince those who have a valid affinity to valid rites of the Church in whatever form, that their affinity is wrong, outdated and not to be allowed to them--that their affinities have been abrogated.
Worst yet is the clericalism of priests who could provide the fullness of the two Masses on the one Roman Rite, but becasue of their prejudice they will not.
For example if an FXSSP parish were established that only had the EF Mass and all of the sacraments in the EF, and there was not an Ordinary Form Mass offered within 50 miles, it would be wrong for that FXSSP priest not to provide the Ordinary Form of the Mass for a stable group desiring it.
The same is true of the priest who has an Ordinary Form Mass parish and there is no parish that offers the EF Mass regularly, at least during the week. It would be the height of clerical arrogance for any priest to be so opposed to that which is allowed that he would refuse that which is allowed and denigrate it in the process.
This is a two way street of criticism I offer those of the clergy or laity who denigrate either form of the one Latin Rite or any of the eastern rites in union with Rome. It is the height of arrogance.
This theology of the Mass and the priest is now being recovered in the modern era and is the basis of the reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the symbolism of each aspect of the Mass and Church architecture. It is also the basis for the recovery of the full theology and doctrine of the priest and his function during the Holy Sacrifice which unfortunately is obscured by theologians in the modern era and in describing his function in the Ordinary Form Mass: