I didn’t mean just this answer, I meant also the line in the GIRM section it is putatively explaining: “even though made in the traditional shape . . . .” Huh? If that’s how a requirement is expressed, that’s like the way people joke about how incredibly polite British or Japanese people phrase a request (“I don’t know if I possibly ought to trouble you, but if it wouldn’t be terribly much of an inconvenience . . . .”)
Because clear and definitive liturgical requirements are passe, and not well-received. Consider Redemptionis Sacramentum – a rather straight-forward, no-nonsense liturgical instruction – and its reception. One need look no further than this very forum, where people regularly post questions about the pouring of the Precious Blood, EMHC conduct, etc.
RS in fact proves the opposite point (mine) – that when Rome wants us to do something, it is perfectly comfortable saying, “You must do X.”
The traditional shape of Communion hosts in the Roman Rite.
Sure. So, is it mandatory? If so, on what basis?
As do the people who want to do things in a “new” and “exciting” way. (I’m not saying you are such a person, just that the reluctance to see Rome as requiring something specific for the liturgy is what enables the innovationists to do things their own way.)
I certainly don’t think I’m such a person! But that is precisely why I think it’s important to read documents for what they say, not for what one surmises they were trying to say, still less for what one thinks they ought to say. I’m completely willing to take Rome as requiring specific things. But that’s the very reason why I’m not immediately inclined to read “There shall be two candles” the same way I might read “Even with two candles . . . .”