The list of changes or “enrichments” of the Ordinary Form which the cardinal then proposes: orientation toward the Lord; genuflection before the elevation and after the Per ipsum (“Through him, with him, in him…”), communion kneeling and on the tongue; the use of Latin for some parts of the Mass “to rediscover the profound essence of the liturgy”; “praying the Canon in silence” in order to enhance its experience; the inclusion in the next edition of the reformed Missal of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar of the Extraordinary Form in a simplified, adapted form, and the Offertory prayers of the Extraordinary Form… Oh, I almost forgot: it is also proposed that, after the consecration, the fingers which touched the sacred Host remain united.
(KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ABOVE ENRICHMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY POPE FRANCIS IN THE ORDINARIATE'S DIVINE WORSHIP, THE MISSAL! THE AUTHER BELOW DOES NOT SEEM TO KNOW THIS FACT AND THAT WHAT POPE FRANCIS GAVE TO FORMER ANGLICANS, HE COULD GIVE TO THE ORDINARY ROMAN RITE!)
Press the title for the complete commentary on Cardinal Sarah's paper which I cannot fine an English translation. Fr. Anthony Ruff of Praytell translates this commentary from the French:
Cardinal Sarah Again Advocates “Reform of the Reform”
by Matias Augé
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, La Nef (juillet-août 2017 – n. 294) offers a long position paper by Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. In it, the cardinal proposes and makes concrete his well-known position on the “Reform of the Reform” of the Mass liturgy of Paul VI. The text’s first part is historical and doctrinal, which leads to a second part with specific proposals.
Sarah says that “the liturgy has become a battlefield, the place where the champions of the pre-conciliar Missal and those of the reformed Missal of 1969 face off.” In this situation, the aim of his paper is “liturgical reconciliation.” While I appreciate the cardinals’ love for the liturgy and his good intentions, I think that his reasoning is not without some ambiguities.
Following Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Sarah claims that the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy is entirely consistent with the requirements of Vatican II. He asks: “How can we think that the Council wished to contradict what was in use before?”
Of course, Your Eminence: “contradiction,” no; but “reform,” yes. Sacrosanctum Concilium “desired to undertake a general restoration of the liturgy” (no. 21). And of course it was a matter of reforming the liturgy which was celebrated in the Church at that point in time.
Later, in support of his thesis, Sarah argues that it is “incorrect to hold that the two forms of liturgy express opposing theologies. The Church has a single truth which she teaches and celebrates.” Again, I must say: two “opposing” theologies, no; but “different,” certainly. As the cardinal himself says, quoting Benedict XVI, “the history of the liturgy consists of growth and progress.”