But in this same section of General Norms there was one principle which has, in fact, been successfully implemented:I'd sum it up this way: There are problems with both the traditional Latin Mass (familiarly known as the Tridentine*) and with the new rite or Novus Ordo but the place we end up in should look a lot more like the Novus Ordo than the mass known as "Tridentine".
Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from it that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung. It is from the scriptures that the prayers, collects, and hymns draw their inspiration and their force, and that actions and signs derive their meaning. Hence in order to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy it is essential to promote that sweet and living love for sacred scripture to which the venerable tradition of Eastern and Western rites gives testimony. (24)Here, apart from continuing quarrels over the translation of Scripture, it is universally acknowledged (indeed, it really cannot be denied) that the use of Scripture in the Novus Ordo is substantially greater and more thorough than before. The faithful are exposed to significantly more of the Bible at Mass over the two and three year cycles of readings. In this one area, at least, the intentions of the Council have been fulfilled.
* What's wrong with calling it the Tridentine Mass? "Tridentine" means "from Trent" and implies that this is the mass instituted following the council at Trent. That is simply not true. All sorts of alterations had been made over the years, some of which were frivolous and pointless. John Paul 2 called it the John 23 mass and that is more accurate. The mass that traditionalists treat as eternal only dates back to the period of the first few seasons of Mad Men.