The funny thing to me is that he goes around bemoaning the fact that in so many (Novus Ordo) Masses all of the faithful approach to receive Holy Communion, while at the same time there are so few confessions, so that it is certain that there are many sacrilegious communions. So the faithful are not already confused? Why can't he see that reintroduction of the Old Rite more widely would help promote a renewal of our consciousness of these perennial teachings of the Church? The Tridentine Mass texts themselves point in that direction.
But of course that may well be the real problem for such as him. Having dismissed the stated reasons for opposition (which I have not done here, but everyone knows all the arguments), we are left with pop psychologizing about it. For my part, I wonder if the underlying difficulty is that the Old Rite carries with it so many connotations, and for men of his generation, so many recollections, that are unpleasant to them, that they want to have nothing more to do with it, and all that it represents.
The French bishops in particular seem to fear that if the Old Mass is "regularized" again Charles Maurras will arise from his grave and bite them on the leg. I would not discount the possibility that the association of the Old Rite with old-time European right-wing politics is a major factor in the minds of many of the opponents.
Actually, it had more to do with culture, especially in Africa. The bishop that spoke at the Synod commented that it would be challenging for Africans to relate to brocade and organs. There is more at this link.
Rigor mortis? At (Vatican) Synod, bishops give lip service to Latin