We might.
But, also,
we should not overlook
that the pre-VII era
had serious problems of its own,
and that reform was
in some measure
needed,
and needed badly.
It was not
heaven on earth
or anything like unto it.
Likewise,
it
should not be overlooked
that the horrid
ligurgical mayhem
which followed the council
was not envisioned by its fathers.
In fact, one might well argue
that
something
on the order of
the current Ordinariate Use
and praxis
expresses more or less
what may have been in their minds.
We are well-counseled
to be informed by tradition
but not to be dumb
imitators of the same,
craven apers of outward signs,
whose parameters of thought and
living
bind us as living prisoners
of ways which are no longer
bearing fruit -
lest we choose a year
in the past
(say, the year A.D. 586...
that's as good as any)
and require that nothing is
of value
that wasn't heard of in that year,
that no thought ought to be cogitated upon
that would contradict
what was then thought to be
of
eternal merit -
but isn't.

May tradition
and Tradition
hold sway always;
may they be prized
and cherished
as teachers
and informers
of wise men's minds and ways -
but not
as millstones
that we carry about,
ignorant of
why they are there.

Perhaps we could say
that tradition
similar is to a sacrament
(or, better said, a sacramental)
in that it
may be an outward sign
of
an inward
and spiritual grace.
If there is no
apparent,
discernible grace,
it is as
a hollow crown.

_______________________________________

Someone once, it may have been Yves Congar in Tradition and Traditions, who likened tradition to the enfranchisement of our ancestors. I like this. It is a much needed concept in our day (at least in 'the Western World') in which blood lines, ancestor knowledge, kinship, elder respect, historic social bonds, the nuclear family, true philo-sophy (love of wisdom and learning), and such have lost their meaning and value in a 'culture' that is increasingly 'now', 'future', partisan and youth oriented, fractured into a thousand constituencies; which consciously (and, as in academe, systematically) disenfranchises our ancestors as if we have derived but a token this and that from them. The notion that we have little, if anything, to learn from the denizens of the mediaeval era (be sure to scowl and growl as you say 'mediaeval era'), or the primitive scions of the ancien regime, and so forth, is de fide in our finest universities, drenched as they are in the acid rain of post-modernism and relativistic nihilism. Suggesting the contrary would in modern academia be met with cutely contorted faces implying that one was being humoured in his daftness. Silly fellow! Few people realise it, but the French revolution is still going on throughout the chic halls of learning all over the western world, and it isn't finished yet. Its counterparts in the Catholic world are those very clerics and lay, men and women alike, who continue to wreak havoc upon its liturgy, music, and culture.

We owe our parents everything, and our grandparents, and our ancestors. Whilst not aping their ways and mores to the letter out of some kind of fetishistical archaicism, we retain what is of value, inform our lives by its wisdom, and are grateful for it. If we don't understand why they ate fish on Fridays, 'beat the bounds', or had rogation days, or celebrated Ascension forty days after Easter and Pentecost nine days later, it behooves us to find out why and go from there. Even as an Episcopalian youth I was aware that while Fr Episcopal Priest taught us about a certain tradition to give it meaning in our lives, Fr Roman Catholic's people had no idea why they did it, they just did it. Is it any wonder that so much 'baggage' was jettisoned following the council - that it became the occasion to 'get rid of' stuff that meant nothing to people who had never been taught its value? And, we still have with us priests of that era, and their tyrant heirs, who resent with seething anger and pique that some of us are reclaiming priceless treasure that they had thrown overboard. Ah! How many an Episcopalian sacristy was enriched by gorgeous, gaspingly splendid vestments, thuribles, monstrances, missals, and the like that otherwise would have been 'sold for a price' to an antique dealer's, or unceremoniously placed (as many actually were!) in garbage cans! I witnessed such with my own eyes. I, myself, own such a finely gold tooled altar missal from the World War I era, with prayers for the Austrian kaiser. Our musea all over the world are filled with items of artistry beyond price of Catholic liturgy that were sold only to be replaced by expensive-but-cheap run of the mill baubles from your local Catholic church goods dealer - where nothing of real value and taste (expensive though it may be) is to be seen... ever.

Speaking from experience - one of the many reasons I reverted to Catholicism was because I found that there really was no cultural divide between its members, age-wise.

I've found children raised in a traditional atmosphere tend to interact more freely and naturally with their elders than children in general. I'm not saying they go about referring to the older generation by their first names or other such rudeness; they have impeccable manners. But they enjoy talking with them and being around them. They realize that the knowledge which is being handed down to them from their parents is not to be put aside lightly. And it certainly helps those who are older to be able to recognize in those younger the youthful passion of growing up in the faith. It's the same reason why the natural ease of the 'cradle' Catholics and the new-born zeal of converts are both essential to the make-up of the Church universal.

As always, Christ left us a very good example. When he lingered in Jerusalem while his parents were returning home, he didn't spend his time trying to convert the Little Rascals of Jerusalem to the Kingdom of God (which would've been an entirely laudable thing to do). He went to the Temple to discuss the Law with the Priests. Surely it was by no means one-sided on Our Lord's part; one can only imagine how that whole discussion must've gone!

Then again, there seems to be a persistent rumor on this forum that I'm at least forty years older than I actually am . . .

Yes, GKC's 'democracy of the dead.'

GKC also said something to the effect that one should not tear down a fence until one knows why it is there in the first place...another way of saying that it is the understanding of tradition(s) that is critical, not necessarily the strict keeping of them.

The quoted passage from Lewis struck me as pertinent to the discussion in another thread regarding use of the Dies Irae. I have difficulty with the determination of some cogniscenti that the piece is no longer pertinent at funeral Masses after about 500 years.

Genuine Tradition with a capital "T" is a gift from the Holy Spirit. That is not the same as imitating practices from another culture that existed 500 years ago and calling it tradition.

To the first sentence, a resounding "Yes!!"

To the second sentence--uhnnmmmhhh, maybe. You use the word "culture" but I don't think that word means what you THINK it means.

Actual, genuine, culture flows directly from 'cult.' (See, e.g., Ratzinger or CS Lewis in other quotes, etc., etc.) So then, the "culture" you write about was Catholicism. I don't think Catholicism ceased to exist, whether Eastern or Western.

I know what you meant--but words matter.

I make no secret of looking to an Anglican model when choosing music. It works!

...would not have welcomed...

Indeed!
They came home and could have fathered something wondrous in the vernacular. But wait! Vernacular, you say? You mean the people are actually to participate? Well, the people are stupid, so we must give them stupid stuff to do and sing. Oh! And they are hardly literate, so we must given them a dynamic equivalent - that's all they should expect. They are also uncouth, so we will give them an ugly happy-clappy mass - as befits them.

Yes, they went out of their way to reject and not to learn anything at all from the Anglican experience. If the Anglo-Catholics had a beautiful mass in English, they went out of their way to make theirs ugly. I still believe, though, that if the vernacular mass had resembled what large numbers of the council fathers envisioned it might well resemble the Ordinariate Use - minus, of course, the Tudorbethan English. The great, very great pity is that Rome just stood by and watched... and said 'ok' every time the American bishops wanted this that and the other - acolytesses, pop-music and all - anything that was trashy. Not all American bishops, and not all American priests were complicit or in agreement with all this, but they did little or nothing to correct it. It took a Benedict compassionately to accomplish for a relatively few culturally - and spiritually - suffering souls what he and his predecessors and successors would not have done for the whole church. Bishop Lopes believes that the Ordinariate will grow exponentially in the next ten years. I believe so too. This daring act of Benedict's is due to flower and bear undreamed of fruit and influence. And, minus Tudorbethan language but with a keen eye to praxis, the real Vatican Two vision just may be redeemed.

Yes, they went out of their way to reject and not to learn anything at all from the Anglican experience.

Hmmm after throwing out the delightful chants of Sarum, how long did it take the Anglicans to write good quality music (consistently) in English... and I am not referring to the islands of quality such as Tallis, Byrd etc.

They came home and could have fathered something wondrous in the vernacular. But wait! Vernacular, you say?

As far as I can gather the English bishops did not want any change but their hand was forced. It is not surprising that the modernists took control.

the real Vatican Two vision just may be redee

While it is easy to say that the Ordinariate use is close to what some of those involved in Vatican 2 wanted... I am not so sure about the tastes of a least a large minority of those involved.

"If you have a vernacular liturgy you must have a changing liturgy: otherwise finally it will be vernacular only in name."

THIS

While I very much like the style of 'Tudorbethan language' I don't think I could put up with a liturgy full of it, I would not be able to sing the lessons to that style of English (or any usage of English) It brings too many memories of Shakespeare.

Can we just have the Sarum Rite back, in Latin of course.

As we have drifted off somewhat to the topic of Lewis and English...

You clearly don't know us very well. LOL. We drift off on every topic.

A religious brother told me of an Orthodox priest he knew whose church has gotten a lot of converts from Catholicism in the past few years. Father said he could always tell who were converts because they always knelt at the Incarnatus. Some days I think that the Roman hierarchy has no idea that amount of "Brain drain" these liturgical practices are causing to their parishes. Lex orandi indeed.

The bowing is complicated. The head bows in the TLM are barely distinguishable from looking at the missal, hence it is helpful that the ministers bow to the cross on the Epistle side in the pre–1962 rite. The ICRSS bows lower to the priest at the incensations than is rubrically called for. I would say a moderate bow, Jackson, in the old rubrics is what you call profound, since the profound bow is described as being almost able to touch the kneels, which is not perpendicular but is closer than 45 degrees. For what it’s worth.

...and during the sung Gloria, (pre-1965), the priest would remove his biretta and head-bow at the name of Jesus; the altar boys would stand and head-bow at the same time.

It is true that the priest no longer sits during the singing of the Gloria (OF). But nothing prevents him from bowing his head at the Holy Name, right?

Or was something WRONG with that traditional little thing?

You'd think that nothing in heaven or earth could have stopped such centuries-old expressions of adoration to He whom they claim to love and adore above all else.

Unfortunately, something on earth did stop centuries-old expressions. Many of the younger folks wouldn't know what you are talking about. We still bow during the Creed, but that is about it other than genuflecting during certain seasons.

the priest would remove his biretta...

I wonder how many folks have never seen a priest wearing a biretta. They probably think it is an Italian sports car.

In para. 137 GIRM we read:

“The Creed is sung or recited by the priest together with the people with everyone standing. At the words et incarnatus est (by the power of the Holy Spirit . . . became man) all make a profound bow; but on the Solemnities of the Annunciation and of the Nativity of the Lord, all genuflect.”

Their heads are bent to read their smartphones.

I really hope the Saturno makes a comeback. Along with change ringing, rood screens, and choirs actually sitting in choir. Total lack of purple.

Ordinariate priests all wear birettas.
Actually, I wish that they wore Canterbury caps -
I always did think that that affair with the precious little pom-pom atop it was just a little bit too... precious.

You can’t, in the end…

Oh, yes, there's more!

From a post on Watershed:

“The Consilium is merely an assembly of people, many of them incompetent, and others well advanced on the road to novelty. The discussions are extremely hurried. Discussions are based on impressions and the voting is chaotic. […] Many of those who have influenced the reform […] have no love, and no veneration of that which has been handed down to us. They begin by despising everything that is actually there. This negative mentality is unjust and pernicious, and unfortunately, Paul VI tends a little to this side. They have all the best intentions, but with this mentality they have only been able to demolish and not to restore.”

That from the Secretary of the Consilium and immediate predecessor to Bugnini.

See: http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2016/jul/30/Consilium-Anselmo-Albareda-Reform/

The more we know, the more the OF is "revolution." And revolution against tradition is decidedly wrong.