The next committee-produced make-it-up-as-you-go-along aren't-we-clever neoliturgy

The blog title is a line (all too pointedly accurate in some places) from Fr. Hunwicke's discussion of the form and source of the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
That's right, Liturgy, an action performed by a liturgical Church, an action whose form is a GIVEN.
Is it's form the be-all-and-end-all?
No, of course not. But it is requisite, (sometimes within certain parameters, sometimes with options.)
Those who insist on this are often insulted as "rubricists," (but it should be admitted, they are only so-called by fabricationists.)
Blessed be God for ever
I don't know that I have encountered the " the celebrant actually wait[ing] until the end of the singing, then say[ing] these prayers of the Offertory, but I have certainly heard priests shout them over instrumental music.
Some readers take exception to Martin Mosebach's complaint that the OF has "positively" forced us all to think about the Liturgy.
I understand what he is saying, but I think we are only forced, not by the OF itself, (although it does allow for more options that we should be trusted with, hearkening to Cdl Pell's words in another context, "better one mission than a thousand options,") but by, also in Fr Hunwicke's words, celebrants with an unhealthy "disrespect for Tradition and the Magisterium."
(I have no Hebrew.) This:
No reader of this blog could doubt my enthusiasm for reading Christian liturgy in terms of its Hebrew roots. But that means understanding that since our Christian Jewish tradition parted company with that Jewish tradition which became Rabbinic Judaism, we have possessed and developed our tradition in the Church, the Body of God's Messiah, in an integral and authentic way. For us, the blessing of the holy Name of YHWH Creator and Redeemer is the Eucharistic Prayer. It begins 'Let us give thanks to YHWH our God' and carries on as we laud and magnify that glorious Name by singing Holy holy holy YHWH God of SBAOTH.
has set me to wondering again, (the blog chatter about the word from the CDW about the Name of God started it,) I should know this, I think I do know it, but too dang much apartame, (pass me another diet vanilla coke,) and I can't come up with it --
When a Jew reads or sings aloud the psalms, he says what when he gets to the unutterable Tetragrammaton? I thought is was Adonai, but how, when using Hebrew words in Christian sacchro-pop was trendy, did we get to the 2 syllable word, (that yes, I admit I'm glad has always made singing SING a NEW Song UNto the LORD problematic in the eyes of some,), and how did the vowels in the English language translation get so universally agreed upon? was it some cabal of song writers?
It should be noted that there are contrarians on the new... directive? letter? instruction? corporate memo? whatever
From Rorate Caeli's combox:
The CDW directive on the name of God seems to be based on a theologically erroneous principle. Because being God Himself, Christ has every right to mention that Name: indeed it was His use of that name that was the occasion of Caiphas call for His capital punishment.
Being incorporated into Christ Jesus, and knowing God, no longer through veils and types, but face to face and in truth, we Catholics have every right to use this name in our prayers and songs, and it is pleasing to the Most Holy Trinity, whose name this is, to do so. To say otherwise is to subordinate the New Testament to the limitations of the Old.
I would appreciate any quotes from the Fathers of the Church which show a consensus against using this Name. I personally recall no Saint or Doctor whom I have read every mention such a scruple for Catholics.
I, on the other hand?
I am pleased that the Reform of the Reform types and the Trendists are, in general, of one mind on this.
(CAN'T we ALL just GET ALONG???)