from my friend PE is his acceptance of various developments beyond the medieval rite present in the Common Service (DS 3) in view of his rejection of the further developments found in the work of the ILCW (DS 1,2).
For example, in DS 3 the loss of a proper offertory; the moving of the offertory to right after the homily and making it an ordinary; making the Nunc Dimittis an ordinary; the use of the Aaronic benediction instead of the traditional blessing at the close of Mass; the loss of the "Ite MIssa"' the loss of the final Gospel; moving the Our Father to a place between the Sanctus and the Consecration. All of these are not simply a removal of objectionable material, but developments of the rite itself.
Terry, my friend, help me understand how to your thinking these developments and alterations are of a different nature than permitting an expanded Kyrie (borrowed from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), an optional Dignus Est Agnus for the Gloria in Excelsis, or a "Thank the Lord" in substitution for a Nunc Dimittis?
I note that both DS I/II, and III (and IV and V) have added an Old Testament reading back in. DS I/II actually keeps closer to the old pre-Reformation Mass in its ordering of a thanksgiving, consecration, anmanesis prior to the Our Father.
I'll stick my neck out to observe that all the Divine Services provided in LSB strike me as quite faithful to the intention of the Lutheran Reformation. My own parish still GREATLY prefers DS III and I agree, it wears incredibly well over time, but I just cannot bring myself to condemn or even to look down on any parish using any of the other Divine Services provided. My good friend, Fr. John Fleischmann, has taught ALL five settings to his parish and they are comfortable with them all.
So, Terry (or whoever else cares to respond), help me understand better your objection to anything but DS III!