I said nice, not necessarily coherent or doable. (I think they are ... but that assertion will just make someone mad.)
- A mixed -- or, rather, a fused -- rite in Elizabethan English: for my purposes the Ordinariate use is "good enough," and avoids the prolixity and superfluity of the Knott missal;
- A unified lectionary and gradual, that coheres with the collects (just what that is, I won't say, but surely it is a win when Sarum, the BCP, and Trent mostly agree);* and
- The English Hymnal (or similar) combined with the noble simplicity of what was called the "English Use" (as appropriate).
*All of this is to say that the author's point about the pedigree of the "Tridentine" lectionary ought to be taken seriously, in so far as it has precedence and a historical case that can be made in its favor given the lack of any traceable evidence from the earlier centuries. Additionally, for the careful reader, the author does aptly suggest that onus rests upon supporters of the new lectionary to justify its implementation. The new lectionary is a construction that came, literally, out of nowhere and reflects the thinking of biblical scholarship and currents in theology of 1960s. The perennial value, of, say, paschal mystery theology is disputable, so too its influence on the reform of the Roman lectionary. The new lectionary, far from having an established pedigree, is on the verge of theological obsolescence.