I'm not familiar with any rubric other than the 1962 missal one stating that if the Sanctus is chanted, it is to be sung in full before the elevation, but if it is polyphonic, the Sanctus and Benedictus is split. So I am not commenting based on any actual knowledge of the historical decrees/rubrics on the matter.

However: I am by no means an antiquarian but I don't think it is antiquarian to look at what the rubrics would have been before the advent of polyphony. I could be dead wrong, but it seems very plausible that before polyphony, if the Sanctus-Benedictus was considered one chant as a whole, that it would have consistently all been sung before the elevation. If this is true, it makes perfect sense to conform our current practice to this when chanting. And to just modify it accordingly if a polyphonic Sanctus is used.

Personally, I VERY much treasure the complete silence after the elevation, which is one of the reasons why I prefer the Sanctus especially to be chanted and not replaced with polyphony. Perhaps this isn't the best way of looking at this, but one of the very distinctive features (among many, of course) of the traditional liturgy compared to the new is precisely that the Canon is silent, and a polyphonic Sanctus-Benedictus takes that away, no matter how beautiful that polyphonic setting might be.

Pope Pius XII chose Montini and Bugnini to plan liturgical reform?

What was he thinking?

What was he thinking?

I hope that this question will soon be more fully explored, now the archives of Pius XII have been opened.
Perhaps he shared the opinion of Fr Fortescue (privately expressed) that the SRC was “a crowd of dirty little monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything”.

I can't think of anyone worse that could have been put in that job.

I can. How about Luther and Cranmer? After all, they were the models for Bugsy and Monty.

O jeez... don't get me going about Cranmer...

Bugsy and Monty

You people know one of these is a canonized saint, right?

Madorganist,

The fact that St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church must not mean that his carrying on with a woman before his conversion was somehow appropriate.

One of these men is a canonized saint, but this doesn't require us to approve of his every action.

.

carefree havoc

I don't think so. Marini's narrative is called A Challenging Reform. Paul VI was deeply troubled by liturgical chaos in Germany and the Low Countries following VII. Many priests there took the prospect of a relaxation of the obdurate immobility of SRC to go off devising and using their own liturgies. I have read of more than two score unauthorised "Eucharistic Prayers" having been published and used, who can say how many other unpublished initiatives there may have been. Bugnini and Paul VI did succeed in patching together something that kept schism at bay.
Our problem is that we then needed someone with the drive and organising ability of Bugnini to then be allowed to undertake a proper reform of the reform. Thanks to the quiet initiatives of Benedict XVI we now have two alternative uses/forms authorised.

the Acclamation [...] which says "Christ is risen...&c....Christ will COME AGAIN"

You really haven't been to a celebration of Mass in English for years! That text, which didn't correspond to any of the acclamations in the 1970 Latin Missale Romanum, was deleted when the most recent edition of the Missale was translated to English in 2011.

The memorial acclamations were added to the Canon in 1970 apparently to imitate a feature of certain Eastern liturgies. For example, the Maronite Qurbono has this prayer after the consecration:

O Lord, we remember your death,
we witness to your resurrection,
we await your second coming,
we implore your compassion,
and we ask for the forgiveness of our sins.
May your mercy come upon us all.

Or this one:

O God, we remember your death,
we witness that you rose from among the dead,
we await your return.

Whether adding this to the Roman rite was a good idea or not, it seems reasonable to accept that such prayers, if they were of long standing in liturgies already approved by the Holy See, were at least not contradictory to the faith.

madorganist - I agree with Fortescue. But the rubric was subsequently changed back to the rule in Pustet days. This illustrates Fortescue point about "... monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything”. They were not interested in "why", just in maintaining the rule, even if it was clearly an abberation.
That rigidity neccessitated the secrecy in which Bugnini was allowed to work, that rigidity caused the post VII explosion of our liturgy.

Pope Benedict XVI favoured moving the sign of peace to the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful. CDWDS said no.

It's not obvious that Pope Benedict had a strong opinion in favor of moving the Pax. In the main body of his 2007 exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, he wrote:

during the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion.

But at the request of the synod fathers, he wrote in a footnote, he asked CDWDS to seek input from the bishops' conferences about the possibility of moving it.

Here's the resulting CDWDS document, approved by Pope Francis:
https://zenit.org/articles/text-of-vatican-document-on-sign-of-peace-at-mass/

It doesn't sound like a convincing case was made to change the practice of the Roman rite -- hundreds of years old, at least -- on the basis of a proposition from one meeting of the Synod of Bishops.

Even the synod didn't speak strongly for it:

Forse sarebbe utile valutare se il segno di pace non vada collocato in un altro momento della celebrazione, anche tenendo conto di consuetudini antiche e venerabili.

That is:

Perhaps it would be useful to evaluate if the sign of peace should not be moved to another moment of the celebration, also taking account of ancient and venerable customs. [my translation]

With this as background, it doesn't seem apt to treat this matter as evidence of some lack of reason or scholarship on the part of CDWDS, its members or its consultors.

Pius X says it is fitting to sing a motet to the blessed sacrament following the elevation

In one job, the priest insisted on organ interlude after the Consecration (if there was no polyphonic Benedictus.) In the next one, the priest insisted that there be silence after the Consecration (the choir sang Chant only.) Not hard to conclude that priests know everything, but really know nothing.....

Fortescue also died in 1923, so applying his opinions about the SRC to the CDWDS of eighty years later is an anachronism.

The pax was at the offertory in the Ordinariate Use which preceded Divine Worship. It was moved to conform to (current) Roman practice.

As for the elevation: Elizabeth I was, as many will know, very 'high church', as was her Chapel Royal. She was known at the elevation insistently to say 'heave it higher, sir priest, heave it higher'.

And, not only was it slow, very slow, the greater the feast the more slowly was it sung - so Andre Raison and others have attested.

@madorganist - I am waiting for access to Dom Combe's text on the preparation of the Vatican Ediiton, where there is some mention of what the monks wanted to do with the Sanctus/Benedictus, as well as at 1934 article from the Revue du chant gregorien.

In the meanwhile, what I have found suggests that the Solesmes/Vatican commission indeed wanted to petition the SRC for authorization to separate the Sanctus and Benedictus, and the SRC said no (as close to the publication date of the new edition of the Gradual as 1909 - one/two years after the gradual rubrics hit the street, so to speak). Notwithstanding the distaste that some express for SRC decrees, the Commission obviously saw in them the expression of liturgical authority - and the bottom line (this is really my only point) is that they are consistent for the duration of the SRC's treatment of this question. The 1909 decree affirms that the provisions of the CE were to be followed, and at least one of the books of chant I have affixes that decree as a footnote to the gradual rubric which explains when the sanctus is to be sung.

It would appear that Fr Fortescue was unaware of the 1909 ruling when he wrote in 1911/12 that the decision(s) placing the Benedictus after the consecration was overruled. Finally, the separated Sanctus/Benedictus would appear to be consistent with the mind of St Pius X - not only based on the text of his 1903 motu but also the 1893 votum on which it was modeled - both expressly pemit a motet in honor of the Blessed Sacrament to be sung after the Benedictus (and there would be no time to sing a motet before the consecration following a combined Sanctus/Benedictus).

I acknowledge that this changed in 1958; the only point I was making as of the original mention of this was that it appears odd to make such a change when the contrary position was expressly and so consistently maintained for centuries, even in the face of repeated requests (which were consistently answered in the negative).

It should be noted we have discussed some of the above before,

https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/7105/liber-usualis-anybody-have-a-copy-with-rubrics-in-english-from-before-1961-/p1

Wikipedia

The most controversial element of the ceremony was the Coronation Mass and Elizabeth's participation in it, since the three surviving eye-witness reports are either obscure or contradictory.

Re removal of the Benedictus in the 1559 BCP, and subsequent official prayer books until the modern liturgical movement, see point 1 here. https://alivingtext.com/2010/10/18/omissions-from-the-book-of-common-prayer/

Either it’s
1) The Benedictus is not part of the song of the angels in Isaiah 6, so it’s not desirable to add it, or
2) (the grumbling I always heard) “Blessed is he who comes....” suggests we are acclaiming someone who has come to us, or shortly will arrive. If the goal of the ‘59 BCP was to unequivocally express Reformed theology, it would be quite inconvenient to suggest to the people, just before the consecration, that God is about to become present in the Eucharist.

Accompaniment in Church documents doesn't necessarily mean what we musicians think of.

True enough, but only during the rule of Pope Francis does "Accompaniment" appear to mean " confirm in the bad habits those who have them".