I don't know what he meant but moving the Introit back to after the Confiteor is too radical a change for the OF. It's possible to restore only the old Confiteor or reintroduce some of the surrounding prayers as part of the Penitential Act where it stands now. Psalm 42 makes less sense after the Introit. Alternatively, Psalm 42 can be separated from the Confiteor. Psalm 42 before the Introit at the doors or in procession, Introit, then Confiteor at the altar/chair.

John, it would be restoring what is the norm both in the older form and what was the norm for thirty years until 2002 (My understanding is that the 1985 GIRM which we never had in the USA kept it this way). The trimming of the Confiteor and the reduction to only one is to be lamented, but Psalm 42 is what people think of when they think of the prayers at the foot of the altar. It really was beloved after almost 400 years of it being mandatory and centuries more of it being prayed in many places before the Mass.

The Ordinariates pray the Collect for Purity after the prayers at the foot, the Aufer a nobis, the Oramus te Domine (both in English), and the incensation. (They did that at least before the introduction to the proper missal; I am not sure what is done now.) That makes even less sense, since the Sarum prayers, of which the collect was the conclusion, ended before Mass began.

But if that’s too radical a change, then perhaps my efforts are better spent on liberating the traditional rites and getting us out of 1962-land. It would be much less difficult and with greater reward than trying to fix the Novus Ordo...

He might be thinking of the 1965 Missal.

Now that that's more or less been addressed, what about my second question? Can we do anything to keep Card. Sarah's suggestions from floating into the aether? Would a letter undersigned by bishops, priests, religious, and faithful expressing a desire for such an option be well received by the CDW?

Yes. There are petitions available for everything, nowadays, and people seem to sign them for no reason at all.

I suspect not, as the elimination of the offertory prolepsis was quite intentional with a view towards the addition of new anaphorae.

But the Ordinariate gets the normative use of the Canon with the older offertory which shares the anticipatory theology with the Byzantine churches, and it has the prayer to the Holy Spirit which is otherwise lacking in the Roman Canon. The “Veni, Sanctificator” is organic development at its best. In fact, the GIRM didn’t use “epiclesis” until 2002 in referring to the prayers which effect the consecration. It mentioned the acceptance of the sacrifice by the Father, which is characteristically Roman.

If the Ordinariate can have it, the rest of the non-TLM world in the Roman church should too.

OK, fine. That would solve the liberals’ critique and eliminate one reason I think the Canon is largely neglected; those who want the traditional Offertory probably don’t care for the other eucharistic prayers.

1) The ferial lectionary can be done, but it is poorly done oftentimes in the Novus Ordo. It would have to take into account longstanding oddities such as the assignment of the Lucan pre-Nativity to late December. It also has to be one year.

2) Yesterday was an exception, but in general, this is much maligned. Unless the community already wants it, a priest who reads the readings in English will have it coming (in France it is more common). And the point to have one language and stick to it is worth heeding for aesthetic purposes. Also, we found out in the 1960s the whole Mass will be in the vernacular sooner or later...

3) Dr. Mahrt strongly argues the Roman Rite never had three readings as the normal practice. The Ambrosian lectionary is not the ancestor of the Roman lectionary, and the Ember Days are of such a nature that to see them as the displaced norm is completely backwards. That also is one more thing to sing for the priest or subdeacon, or you need a lector (and outside of a seminary or monastery, it gets fuzzy really quickly as to who can sing the lections)

4) The proper Last Gospel was only that of displaced Sundays or that of the Epiphany on Christmas (I cannot think of any other examples). To do otherwise would be a radical change. Also, that only makes sense if there are proper lections. One weakness of the older lectionary, though in keeping with the simplicity of the Roman Rite, is the lack of proper readings for many feasts. It would also be radical to introduce this practice; the thanksgiving took on the symbolism of the Apostles preaching about the Messiah to the nations, so I think that the exceptions prove the rule of the symbolism. There also seems to be a good in having one Last Gospel text for most Masses. What needs to return instead are commemorations at the Mass and the Office according to pre-1960 practice. For example, in 2012 when the feast of the Precious Blood trumped Sunday, it had both commemoration of Sunday and a proper Last Gospel. Otherwise, such as on Septuagesima this year, the second oration was that of St. Timothy, but the last Gospel was from St. John.

5) Previously there were simples, semidoubles, and doubles of the I and II class, which are really telling you how the day’s office will be sung. (I think I got the mid-twentieth century terminology correct.) The sheer number of III class feasts results from the attempted simplification by John XXIII, so now the antiphons are always doubled. Now, the question is what of the Mass. We know the Office had clear distinctions. (I am still learning about this, so I don’t know how saints’ feasts were ranked and what changed at Mass; a brief search suggests the Gloria was still sung.)

But even in an ideal world where the choral office is normative, the faithful would still mostly experience the Mass, so it makes sense to treat all the saints equally at Mass with the Gloria (save the historical exception of the Holy Innocents). How can you pick and choose equitably? The Gloria gives thanks to God for the saint and his redemption, and one prays it in a special way with him or her who now enjoys beatitude.

Moreover, the sanctoral cycle is the temporal cycle for some parts of the year. One perpetually disappointing feature of the Novus Ordo is one, optional memorials, and two, the elimination of the Gloria.

6)This I and many others endorse wholeheartedly.

I have been told that the Last Gospel and Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were accretions that were added to the mass. The "Foot..." prayers I have read were sacristy prayers that were absorbed into the mass. What about that "Gospel?" I have read that it was at one time, changeable. True?

I thought that, originally, the Gloria was only sung at a Papal Mass and little by little its use was expanded. Now, apart from Lent and Advent, it's used at, I would guess, 80% of all EF masses (ferias don't get much of a look in with the dominant sanctoral cycle). I do feel that it should be used more sparingly.
The proposition for additional readings/ferial lectionary is a response to V2's request for an expanded use of scripture (how you make it work, I don't know). Admittedly, the ferial lectionary would not actually be used much unless, say, the readings of 3rd class feasts were made optional (probably a bad idea as we all know what happens when you have too many options). Alternatively, as you mention Matthew, more proper readings could be assigned for saints' days.