Ireland is a particularly interesting case: until that late 1960s, secondary education was not compulsory, and only 2/3 of people had any at all. Much less Latin.

whereas chant operates on the intellect

But I'm of the opinion that table stakes for traditionalists in a general discussion of liturgical reform is acknowledgment that the TLM is not a perfect product fallen from heaven, but has some deficient expressions, some accretions, and some obstacles to participation that the V2 Fathers were correct in wanting reformed.

There was something to reform and to rediscover. Clearly, the first part of the Mass, which is intended to instruct the faithful and for them to express their faith, needed to reach those ends in a clearer and so to speak more intelligible manner. In my humble opinion, two such reforms seemed useful: first the rites of that first part of the Mass amd also a few translations into the vernacular.
The priest coming nearer to the faithful; communicating with them; praying and singing with them and therefore standing at the pulpit; saying the Collect, the Epistle, and the Gospel in their language; the priest singing in the traditional melodies the Kyrie, the Gloria, the creed with the faithful; these are so many good reforms that give back to that part of the Mass its true finality.
Abp. M Lefebvre; Itinéraires vol 95 July-August 1965

particular concrete abuses - such as rapid-fire low masses, or hymn sandwiches or even orchestral masses

Abbysmum, Happy Mother's Day!

What popped into my mind when I read your comment about perfection, was a random image of a very early Mass, when the idea of sacrifice was probably still first and formost in the minds of the Apostles. And probably all of it felt very Jewish. I just see an image of probably St. Paul, on his knees, elevating the consecrated host (which might have been a big chunk of rustic, pita-like bread), with all sincerity and love and fear, high in the air.

I see the image of that act as perfect, in the sense that it was an act of trust; an act that they TRULY believed in; an act that they knew they must do, because Jesus told them to.

So if you wanted to get down to describing a “perfect Mass” it would probably last about one minute… bread and wine elevated with the priest, saying the words of consecration… (then again, our liturgy from spy Wednesday to Easter morning is about four days… and isn’t it perfect?)

that really is all that is absolutely necessary. Everything else added however is beauty and devotion and worship and praise and excellence.

On Mother’s Day you could run up to her and give her a kiss and run away, and I suppose that would be all that is necessary… But showering her with words of praise, chocolates and flowers and songs are things that she will always remember and certainly appreciate.

Can you ever love God too much? Can you ever love your mother too much including our dearest Mother in heaven and her church on earth?

herently flawed is definitely not the phrase I would use, as it strikes close to saying intrinsically or essentially flawed, which is not an opinion we can have about the mass in any approved form.

I'm not sure if I want to philosophize about perfection, I just think in these types of discussions that admitting certain deficiencies in the TLM and often enough in the pre-V2 celebration of it (such as a lack of participation) is a basic token of fairmindedness.

I think that the way the TLM is celebrated now, with hand missals, close attention to the action at the altar, sung congregational responses, and varying levels of congregational singing owes a lot to the Liturgical Movement, the emphasis the V2 Council Fathers laid on participation, and perhaps even to "mutual enrichment" from the participatory focus of the NO.

In a certain sense there is something ahistorical about how we now participate in the TLM, and it's an improvement.

a broader observation that the very reverent, liturgically correct, and relatively participatory TLMs trads are now used to were not, as far as I understand, the norm in the decades leading up to the council

So for instance, a "rapid-fire mass" which is just quite brisk, not actually incomprehensible

It is indeed expressly forbidden to use incense at Mass without deacon and subdeacon, unless there be a custom approved by the Ordinary to the contrary. In England, in the great majority of churches, it is impossible to provide sacred ministers. In such churches, therefore, High Mass is hardly ever celebrated. As a substitute for High Mass it has long been the custom to celebrate this kind of Missa cantata, as the principal Mass on Sundays and feasts. This is done with the knowledge and approval of the bishops. There can therefore be no doubt that we have here a case of the custom allowed by the Congregation of Rites.

But in fact, you referred to deficiencies in the TLM itself, not only "abuses" that existed prior to V2.

certain deficiencies in the TLM and often enough in the pre-V2 celebration of it (such as a lack of participation)

We can lament the lack of High Masses or congregational singing in the 1950s, but 55 years of a supposedly participatory liturgy has been mostly impotent to correct the sad situation.

But people are free to reject this and even the 1960 reform. And I’ve been aware of this stuff for fully half my life this summer. I used to argue for it. I no longer do.

Then try to engage.

His point is also simply that we can do the TLM and get congregational signing. It need not be reformed to do so.

And I think that Patrick and I both disagree that it’s downstream of the NO.

feel like we’re being lectured to as if this is the first time that we have heard it.

I think that the way the TLM is celebrated now, with hand missals, close attention to the action at the altar, sung congregational responses, and varying levels of congregational singing owes a lot to the Liturgical Movement, the emphasis the V2 Council Fathers laid on participation, and perhaps even to "mutual enrichment" from the participatory focus of the NO.

In a certain sense there is something ahistorical about how we now participate in the TLM, and it's an improvement.

The tricky part of it, which may offend some sensibilities, is that this is a fruit of the Liturgical Movement, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and perhaps even of mutual enrichment from the NO.

a positive result of the Liturgical Movement, of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and of a reforming impulse and enrichment from the post-V2 mainstream of the Church. Your notion of corporate worship, as you termed in in a previous post, has been decisively influenced by these modern currents

Step out of your feelings for a moment - both of you are responding in ways that demonstrate hasty misreadings and misunderstandings of my position, after me stating and restating it, making it hard to believe you are actually so familiar with it.