This IS one of the biggest difference between the EF Requiem Mass and the current "Rite of Christian Burial". It is part and parcel of the different approach to the Funeral Mass since Vatican II. The Old Rite was TOTALLY about the deceased, singular or plural. There were no blessings of the people present, not even the final blessing from the Celebrant. EVERYTHING said was for the benefit of the departed, even to the edification of all present. I believe it was also a significant part of the bereaved family and friends grieving and finding "closure". The OF Funeral Mass does a pretty nice job of "commemorating" the passing of the deceased, and there are some prayers specifically for the departed's soul, but usually no mention of "purgatory", only talk of how nice everything will be at the last day, and that is what we basically celebrate on the day. IOW, the congregation is asked to "transcend" the present moment into the future, even while the Liturgy doesn't ask nearly as much transcendence!

So, like everything else in the modern Liturgy, it is all about everyone, and "dona eis requiem" is absolutely out!

For me, personally, I want the old Rite, in toto - not one word from the Rite of Christian Burial! In fact, that leads me to another question: when will we be allowed a proper "Rite of Catholic Burial"?

Traditionally, in Masses for the dead, the responses at the Agnus Dei were modified:

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona eis requiem.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona eis requiem.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona eis requiem sempiternam.

This modification is no longer indicated in the Order of Mass (or Christian Burial), so you were perfectly correct.

This is one of only a few substantive changes in the chants for the Mass for the dead (Requiem), along with the Dies irae, the modified psalm-tone at the Introit, and of course the use of Alleluia chant(s) in Masses outside of Lent.

How is that, as one acquaints themselves more with both forms of the Mass, the changes that created the Ordinary Form come more into question? I know this is not the case for everyone, but why would people create a form of the liturgy where "something is missing"?

It wasn't that something was missing in the requiem. The thinking seems to have been that something foreign to the liturgy was added in Medieval times. Everything in the EF is not necessarily normative, with some things being accretions over time. There was a deliberate effort to remove some of those accretions and refocus the liturgy to emphasize the Resurrection of Christ. How well all that succeeded is up to individual interpretation.

It is what it is.

Lovely tabernacle! It'd be even cooler if they had known that the disciples were probably husband and wife, signifying Adam and Eve in the new creation.

At Walsingham (I don't know if this is 'officially Ordinariate' or just Walsingham) it's black for All Souls and Good Friday. I've noticed black and white at funerals, so this may be a 'family choice' - I don't really know.

I have very mixed feelings about presumptions and teachings about the next world. Purgatory and Hell are certainly real and not to be ignored or taken lightly. It seems to me, though, that there are those who live in utter fear of these, as if there were no hope that was trustworthy. Jesus certainly didn't carry on this way. He spoke much about the kingdom of heaven and not so much about the other place. Much of mediaeval spirituality was one of fear and dread rather than faith, hope, charity - and trust, and love. There really must be a balance. An awful lot of people seem to believe more in purgatory and hell than they do in heaven. This is neither realistic nor faithful in Christ, who went to a lot of trouble for us.

Too, when it comes to the Marian anthems one would think that Regina caeli would be the most loved. Ha! It isn't - rather, there is no shortage of those who know only the Salve Regina. It is the weepiest and most depressing of any of them. The fervour and fearful tone with which people rather desparately beg for our Lord's mother to 'save us from the fires of hell' is totally opposite to our Lord's own emphasis, his own teachings for how to live our lives. We are not and cannot be 'save[d]... from the fires of hell' by our Lord's mother. He, himself, is our Saviour, and our 'only mediator and advocate' (St Paul). Veneration of the BVM is certainly due and to be encouraged, but this maudlin state of mind is not veneration, it is idolatry and faithless despair. No creature can save - only God. It is curious and noteworthy that the sole object of our prayers ever mentioned by Jesus is the Father, and asking of the Father in his name.

The theology of the Paschal Mystery is implicit in the traditional rites as fas as the Mass goes, and textually, there are no more references heard by the ears of those worshipping in a normal setting, that of Sunday, festal, and occasional daily Mass in the new liturgy than the old. The Paschal Vigil is superior in the old rite than in anything that Bugnini created, and it is an example of what John Bossy in Christianity in the West calls sacrifice and sacrament. Once you begin to see just how rich, engaging, and 3D, literally and figuratively, traditional religion, to borrow from Duffy, is, you begin to become critical of reform. At the very least, you see how contradictory and inconsistent it becomes, e.g. In the 1956 Holy Thursday Mass, I can approve of the Agnus Dei text being restored, but it’s the only good change; it’s ancient, but so were the folded chasubles now excluded from Holy Week...

Well it was 600-700 years ago. I am of the opinion that east and west should have gotten together and defeated Islam - a far bigger threat than theology.

As far as I am concerned, one who doesn't believe in Purgatory should follow that logic to it being fact that most people go to Hell. If we are imperfect at our passing, and there is no chance for purgation/punishment/cleansing, then we would go to Hell.
As our priest said tonight, "God loves us and respects our Free Will so much, that he will allow us to go to Hell if we so choose or if that is where our choices lead us."

There's little about Protestants that causes as much of an "eye-roll" for me, than when they say, "another angel got its wings," "so-and-so went to heaven today," etc. Correcting a grieving person can definitely cause a rift in your relationship, though. (Though, neat story, when I was in a Show/Religious choir at Lake Junaluska, in college, when it came to be my time to lead prayer / bible lesson on the bus, I chose 2 Maccabees, which I was sure none of these Protestants had read or heard of, and added the prayer for the faithful departed. I was thanked, later, by one of the members, who said that knowing that we could pray for the departed helped in his grief at the passing of his toddler nephew. So, you just never know...)

However, if you look up Radio Replies and read through their responses and references for purgatory, you will see that it (regardless of Name) wasn't suddenly made up or something in the last millennium. There is, of course, 2 Maccabees, and other New Testament references to the need for cleansing before one can enter into Paradise.

---
I know this thread is a year old, but I happened upon it, and just wanted to add my thoughts.

@CCooze.....perhaps your Prot friend should have asked his 'toddler' nephew to pray for HIM, as given the age of the nephew, he's probably having popcorn with Peter.

That's the way our family ends grace before meals, asking for the prayers of our very own Saint, who died immediately after baptism, confirmation, and eucharist--about an hour after birth.