Liturgical reform, in itself, is natural, good, and brings about needed change when necessary. That certainly explains why a simple translation was not sufficient for the Council Fathers, in addition to the prohibition on vernacular alone decreed by the Council of Trent. However, I must ask: why not revise the existing Missal of 1962? Why write up a completely new rite? The idea of writing up a new rite gives the impression that the Mass is an invention created by man, rather than a gift from God, and that is problematic in my opinion.
As for removing things which had developed over the centuries, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with the wish to renew the spirit of the liturgy and help the Church become more true to her roots. However, the principle of organic development limits this kind of “reversal”, so to speak. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mediator Dei, 62:
“Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See”.
While I appreciate the principle of liturgical reform in general, the product of the reform following Vatican II doesn’t sit well with me because of the criticisms I have brought up above. Does the Missal of 1962 need to be reformed? Perhaps, but I will leave that decision to the Church’s authority.