[quote="O_Moriah, post:11, topic:309363"]
That's how the action first started. It then continued even though it was no longer necessary for practical reasons.
And, as we can see in this thread, the action, now devoid of its pragmatic usefulness, but still continuing as a matter of ritual inertia, gets backward etiologies (i.e., after-the-fact explanations that no longer have anything to do with the original intent). These backward etiologies are given spiritual symbolism. And as people are taught the spiritual symbolism, they then regard this new explanation as somehow the real reason it's done and are filled with dread over changing it since it feels like they're somehow dishonoring the backward spiritualized etiology.
At some point in history, the priests robes become so encumbering that he needed help with it to preside. If the robes are no longer encumbering, there is no reason to continue the practice. Lifting the chasuble is a human-made practice, not divine law. The appropriate authorities can, if they wish, stop the practice as no longer necessary. Those who understand the origin of the action should be able to understand the change if it ever comes. Those who don't understand the origin and are never properly catechized as to its origin become scandalized thinking that something purely spiritual is being taken away for no good reason.
Your reasoning makes some sense, but don't all liturgical actions in a way consist of the spiritualisation of an practically obsolete action? The lavabo (washing of the hands) before the Eucharistic Prayer (to clean hands which in the past were quite dirty, but modern hygiene practices render it unnecessary), or even the shape and form of the chasuble (a raincoat to cover the priests who journeyed far and wide to celebrate mass, but now the most rain the priests will encounter will be in the short walk between the parish office and the nave).
In that vein of logic, wouldn't your reasoning mean that we should take out quite a lot elements of the liturgy, which, though no longer practically necessary, still contain much symbolism? Wouldn't removing the chasuble yank a whole chunk of symbolism from the spirituality of the liturgy? In fact, why bother with the elevation, or the recitation of the readings, when everyone can see the Eucharist now, or is literate enough to read the Bible on their own?
I understand your argument, but its conclusion seems rather uncomfortable to me. Unless a particular element of liturgy does not add to the spiritual significance of the mass or actually subtracts from it, I don't see a particular reason why it should be removed. Of course, I will defer to the superior judgement of the Magisterium on this matter. :)