Fr Blake put up a post earlier about the upcoming Latin Mass Society training conference. I can't say I like what he said about the LMS ''pressuring'' him into advertising it (although since I have no sense of humour maybe I am a bit slow in the uptake?). I personally would just go ahead and organise Liturgy without their knowledge - since when did the LMS have the monopoly over ''traditional'' Liturgy? I personally think that their promotion of just the middle-stage in a well-planned and intelligent reform of the Liturgy as the ''Traditional Latin Mass'' is very dishonest.
High Mass in the Old Rite is rarer than it ought to be. This is probably because of the issue of Sacred Ministers - for a High Mass, practically (these days) you need to procure three priests. The Celebrant has to be a priest, the same as the Deacon has to be a Deacon, but what of the Subdeacon? For some obscure reason, in recent centuries, the Subdiaconate was treated as a Major Order in the Latin Rite, but why? It has not been treated consistently so - and in the East it is seen as the highest of the Minor Orders. Plus, if the Subdeacon is indeed a Major Order (well was, it was one of the many abolishments under Paul VI...) then why does the Bishop not lay hands upon the candidate, as is common to the ordination rites of other Major Orders? It would make more sense to me to treat the (hopefully, resurrected) Subdeacon as a Minor Order, just like the ministries of Acolyte, Porter, Lector and Exorcist. This way, a layman can (in extreme circumstances) act as Subdeacon. There is no use complaining about it though, for ''purist'' reasons - if a layman can act as Master of Ceremonies, or Acolyte, then why can not a layman act as Subdeacon? The rubrics of the Missal suppose all ministers of the Altar to be at least tonsured clerics.
Naturally also the Deacon should actually be a Deacon and not a Priest, since the ministry of the diaconate is more apposite to the Deacon than the Priest (although I appreciate that a Priest is a Deacon). There should be some encouragement from on high of vocations to the permanent Diaconate. Since Paul VI issued his motu proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem in 1967, the permanent diaconate has been revived in the West - but not really. Most seminarians are still training to be priests. I think that the Diaconate is very important - so important that every parish should have one. How most people view the parish priest is really how the deacon of the parish should be seen - the one in charge of the pastoral ministry, apostolic care of the poor, making visits to the sick with the Holy Viaticum etc, and most importantly ministering to the Celebrant at High Mass (but also the mediator between priest and people, leading the holy litanies, censing the liturgical choir, the holy images and lay people individually instead of three simple swings...). This way the parish priest can focus on his own spiritual life and prepare adequately for the weekly (rather than daily) celebration of High Mass.
In churches where the entire Office is not chanted in choir there should really only be one High Mass a week, and on Holydays. Sunday should have at least some Office (Mattins, Lauds and Vespers - perhaps Compline also), with High Mass. Mass should never be separated from the Divine Office.