Adding things to the Mass was as much a problem in the decades before Vatican II as was reducing parts of the Mass or omitting ceremonies.
Yes. And yet Trads love the Leonine Prayers...which I find liturgically troubling.
Not that they aren't good prayers, but their exact role as "pseudo-liturgy" or "kinda extra-liturgical sorta" only to be said at Low Mass is odd and unprecedented.
Pius XII addressed the addition of prayers and devotions to the Liturgy in Mediator Dei. Essentially, just because it helps foster devotion does not mean it deserves a place in the Liturgy.
The Leonine Prayers are a different question, perhaps not on principle, but they were required by the Pope, who is the arbiter of the Roman Liturgy. It would seem to be different if they began as part of a private devotion, which is what I was referencing as many of the "additions" before Vatican II.
If we permitted this and that and the other thing, we'd end up basically where the state of affairs were before Trent. Where, most places said the Roman Rite, but every kind of variation had crept in from diocese to diocese.
we must still ask the question: Why do we not have it any longer?
We don't bother asking this about the novus ordo, we just know that something has been lost, that something is missing.
Well, if we want to be principled, indeed. I'm certainly not going to go point by point in one arena and then refuse on an equal field not to do it. One need only look at studies such as the "Ottaviani Intervention" as it is called.
Let's take that point. I would say that the desire to, as was somewhat done, include more lessons at Mass was probably a good thing. That the offertory is essentially gone, bad thing. And the more you study the Novus Ordo, it becomes clear that we probably could point out a couple good things which embody real and legitimate reform.
Even an "Arch-traditionalist" by the name of Marcel Lefebvre signed Sacrosanctum Concilium. And I would say that even he probably thought that there were areas where good reform could occur.
Trads idealize midieval times to an extent...and yet the middle ages were certainly not minimalist. In fact, the pious tendency of our beloved middle ages was to expand and embellish the liturgy, to maximize, not minimize. This led to some abuses, but this is why we have a hierarchy to regulate it and prune.
I'd say they don't idealize the medæval as much as they do the 1900s and the Renaissance. Neither are a good time to idealize. The height of Christendom under Charlemagne and in the succeeding years is probably a much better time to idealize if we're going to idealize any.
You have the men you need to perform the function, no more, since more does not somehow add to the reverence.
The most elaborate services have many men!
You have a very "Low Mass" mentality.
No. It's a "Roman" Mentality. You don't have 30 altar servers for Solemn Mass when you need about 8. The Roman Principle consists in asking the question, "Why does this person need to be here?" or "Why do I do this action?". If there's a reason, he stays, or you do the action. Extra actions, or extra people, who have no liturgical function, do not add to the Liturgy. In fact they take away from it.
Another way of explaining the "Roman" Liturgical paradigm is also to say: "If you don't need it put it away". Essentially, you don't leave the Altar (which represents Christ) set up for High Mass when it is not in use. You remove the Missal, and the altar cards, and you cover it, just as if you left the tomb of Christ, you would leave your prayerbooks on top of Him for your next visit.
I frankly don't like how the Low Mass spread to become so common. It really should be seen as an extraordinary event (like un-minorly-ordained altar boys, as I've discussed on other threads).
The Solemn High Mass is THE standard for Roman Liturgy. All others were only for those situations when not enough ministers can be procured.
Amen! Everyday the parish that can have a Solemn Mass should have a Solemn Mass. It is the "normal" form of Mass.
With that whole tract you wrote, I agree.
We must restore the Liturgy to that, and in turn we have to, as the Pope have always encouraged, train our boys and men to when possible and necessary fulfill the extra-ordinary roles, principally the Choir and the roles as Altar servers.
You make only the reverences, genuflections and motions minimally necessary.
LOL! The novus ordo proves you wrong here. The N.O. comes pretty close to "minimal"...and shows that the Tridentine is anything but!
But that begs the question, if you are a Trad why do you like "minimal"? The ultimate fruit of that is the Novus Ordo. I like maximal.
You're pretty clearly misunderstanding my words here. By minimal, I mean "no more than the rubrics require". I do not mean, less in everything is good. Public prayer is structured, and we should not turn it into private devotion.
For example, the altar server genuflects when crossing the center of the altar, and when "leaving sight of the altar". Almost all English-language rubricists agree that the Credence Table is not out of the sight of the altar. So if the server stands on the Epistle side and need to go to the credence, he just walks over. He does not first move to the center, genuflect, and then go to the credence. Except, a lot of people do make the extra motion. There's no reason to do so, and it actually takes away from the Liturgy, because the server, whose role is meant to be minimally conspicuous, is now drawing extra attention.
We should understand the principles. And we should not do more than the rubrics dictate as a part of public prayer.
That doesn't mean that the Mass is perfect as it stands now. IMHO, some of what happened in the 1965 Missal was a welcome and good restoration (especially as regards the restoration of the roles of the choir, deacon and subdeacon), even if there were many other problems
That's more like it! 
I agree. There needed to be a restoration of the proper roles of the other liturgical orders. One priest taking on all the roles is a very "Low Mass" type of thing.
You all have to make a choice. Are you just pursuing nostalgia. or authentic liturgical tradition?
Because it seems that many of you have a "Low Mass with altar boys and canopy-less reredos" mentality that seems to just be a 1950's-type nostalgia for the pictures and experiences you remembered. Or else a fear of any changes (though this is understandable because of the trauma of the N.O. changes)
Because the Ideal of the Latin Rite (though not commonly realized in the last few centuries) was, as expressed by the assumptions of the Caeremoniale, a mass with all the minor orders present and preforming their functions (including ordained acolytes), a Solemn High Mass, with a canopy and an altar you can walk around (this doesnt exclude reredos, which can be built so that the consecrating bishop can walk behind them).
Don't nostalgically idealize the Low Mass. That is the attitude that led to the Novus Ordo. Pruning needs to be done. Spartan "streamlining" does not.
And I'm not at all suggesting that "Roman" is "Spartan", nor that we ought to have a Spartan reduction in the Liturgy.
I am suggesting that the opposite of Minimalism is just as bad. The happy balance is learning and sticking to Roman principles.
