Why was the older form of the Latin rite in effect “outlawed” for years? My strong personal (subjective) opinion is that many in positions of responsibility realized that few among the faithful would attend the NO when the traditional rite was equally available. Aren’t there some objective standards of artistic merit? The supremely important element, of course, is that any valid eucharistic liturgy is the sacrifice of Christ. The secondary element of artistic merit is nonetheless important.
All else being equal; if the supreme Lord of the universe came for a visit to your home, would you take him to see The Gong Show or to a Bach symphony concert? The NO has the artistic sensibility of the late 50’s / early 60’s [edited by Moderator].
Consider the growing interest in the traditional rite among young people. If/when the traditional rite is part of the average Catholic’s experience, I have no doubt that the NO will wither away from lack of interest and become a barely remembered footnote in texts on church history hundreds of years from now.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the NO celebrated reverantly according to the rubrics. The NO is all I knew for years. It’s like the “home team” you know is going to lose against a better team: you don’t have to like it, but you know what’s coming.