"Thus some important considerations have to be mentioned: 1. Since the Enlightenment, change has been seen as progress within Western culture. In some ways, we can say that the Pauline liturgical reform was motivated by this approach. Liturgy instead has to be seen as something permanent, a reality that is transmitted from generation to generation, so changes should be very limited. 2. After years of liturgical turmoil and due to the fact that in most places Traditionalists have not been treated in a reasonable way, it has to be considered that any possible changes that might be introduced to the Missal of St Pius V would run the risk of being received with suspicion. (Many faithful might be concerned that behind those changes there was a concerted effort to move them to the Pauline Missal.) 3. The 1962 Missal can be enriched with the introduction of some new saints like Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the Martyrs of Spain, the Martyrs of Ukraine and many others. But here we have to be wary that in adding new saints we do not displace others who have a significant value in the history of the Church and in popular piety. 4. In the 1962 Missal, in its approved edition for France, there are some additional prefaces; those prefaces could be extended to the Universal Church."
I have a few comments to make on the above passage:
1.) I agree entirely with the overall point being made. A sense of permanence needs to be restored. However, DISCUSSION of possible changes to the 1962 Missal makes for interesting conversation/debate and does not have to mean that anyone is calling for changes to be made in reality. Abstract vs. concrete so to speak. I like such discussions, but many just dismiss the very idea of discussing changes. Discussion does not mean actual implementation.
2.)The Gallican (French) prefaces noted above for the 1962 Missal were, in fact, extended to the Universal Church in 1962 by Pope John XXIII. These include the Prefaces of Advent and the Blessed Sacrament among others.
3.) The best case scenario going forward will be to unrestrict the TLM while reforming the NO at the same time. This may ultimately lead to a single Roman Rite again in the future, which will be a Rite that is essentially Tridentine with organic modifications.
I think that would be a wonderful outcome. One of the problems, however, is that Catholic practice and formation at the parish level is so poor now that it is going to take a massive "missionary" effort to restore the liturgy. That is, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the practices (things like Confession, the devotion to saints, etc.) that surrounded and supported the Tridentine rite have nearly vanished, in the US at least.