It seems that there may be some confusion in regards to what I just posted. I would like to clarify even more so that my point may be better understood.
I never said that we should go back to the 62 Missal. I never said the NO wasn't a Mass. I'm simply highlighting the problems with the Churches current liturgical situation. Think of this for a minute, how many corrections, translations, new rubrics, apostolic exhortations, encyclicals, motu proproio's have been written just to try to give the new mass some sort of footing since 1970? We're continually trying to justify the changes we made and at the same time trying to make them resemble something that has loose connections with the traditional practice of the Church. The only thing that is produced is something that has, quite frankly, a phony feel to it. I think the NO Mass needs to be viewed in highlight of tradition. We must look back to the '62 Mass and ask ourselves "what truly needed changing?" When it comes down to it, not a whole lot. In my view from what I have researched so far, here is what I can come up with that truly needed changing.
1. Vernacular- Now before I go any further, I want to say I am fan of the Latin for two reasons. First off, the Latin language is malleable enough to be formed to any musical genre. Second off is because of the accuracy of the language. Keeping this in mind, it is not necessarily a bad thing to translate parts of the Mass into the vernacular, provided that, and only that, the translations are spot on accurate. IMHO, the shoddy translations, especially the English, are the biggest problem with current church practices regarding the vernacular.
2. The Last Gospel - Here's what I mean by this. IMHO, and from what I have read, the last Gospel should be moved so that it is read before the commission "Ite Missa est." That way it has context inside the Mass itself.
3. The Canon - No, I don't mean change the canon itself. However, I do think that it is appropriate that the canon be read allowed. I am a bit reserved by this, but nonetheless, I don't see it as a problem. However, I would retain this part of the Mass in Latin.
Now, after saying all of this, I'm not trying to pass myself off as some sort of liturgical expert. These are just some pious indignations that I've come to after doing quite a bit of research in the past few weeks. I'm sure my opinions may change after more research. Who knows? However, I think just these few changes would have accomplished what Sacrosanctum Concilium asked for without the severance from the ancient rite.