What I'm most surprised at, in this thread, is the most unbecoming attribution of various unflattering motives to those who might celebrate in the old Roman Rite (Sarum use). How inappropriate it would be, to identify those who might choose to use the Byzantine Rite, as having certain views about monarchy, or certain weird attitudes, like wanting to "play-act" ceremonies from early centuries, like some dilettantish historical re-enactment, or as being doe-eyed extreme Russophiles, etc. -- solely on the basis of their celebrating the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom! And yet that's exactly the kind of "dissing" we see in this thread: "romantic notion," "academic recreations," "liturgical tinkering," etc. What in Sam Hill?!
Of course many Roman Catholic apologists were quoted, defending their church's Counter-Reformation in liturgics. I am curious why, if we do not accept the defenses Roman Catholic apologists have made for their distinctive doctrines, we Orthodox would accept the defenses they have made for their Church's distinctive liturgical decisions. As Orthodox Christians, we are able to come to our own conclusions about such matters, from a slightly different viewpoint.
I would not dismiss as "liturgical tinkering" the beautiful things Orthodox Saints of the West, and other Latin hymnographers, contributed to our worship in the 8th, 9th, or 10th centuries. Written by Saints, sanctioned by Popes, these things served a valuable pastoral function in the WR for (in some cases) a good 1000 years, before being clipped with papal shears in near-modern times. One would not call, for example, the three antiphons in the Byzantine Rite, which were later additions, "tinkering," and in fact one WOULD call it "tinkering" to now remove them. I am not intending to extrapolate anything super specific to the WR from that analogy, but it's a pretty solid analogy.
Trent cut a lot of things out of the Roman Rite, including some things of venerable antiquity. It most assuredly did NOT take the rite back to a pre-Schism form. It just made a new form, shorter, but containing most of the old content. Trent was not super revolutionary, so I don't want to overstate the case, but there was much of value and long standing which was lost, especially the poetic and didactic elements. Poetry and religious education are still of value in our modern world.
[In fact -- but this is a tangent within this thread -- after certain things were excised from the Roman Rite by Trent, one can tell that they WERE valuable, from the fact that popular devotions grew up to replace them. For example, the processions were mostly eliminated, and next after that, the stations of the cross grew in popularity to replace the walking around the church, which involves the whole body in devotion, with a new way of walking around the church. The procession stations at the rood and choir step got replaced by the various stations which give the devotion its name. It's as if certain needs of human nature which the old rite met, were felt to be not met, so that unofficial, extra-liturgical things were quickly embraced, in order to meet those needs once again.]
Finally, there was this quote: “The missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman missal of 1474..."
The 1474 Missal is closer to the Sarum than the 1570 Missal, in various ways.
Anyway, my #1 plea is for tolerance and not accusing people of sick motives just because they have one liturgical use or another. At least can we agree on that, I hope.