What are the ‘spiritual richness and theological depth’ of the Ordinary Form?

Without any academic background in this field I'd like to suggest the acclamation of the consecration, citing (transformend to the first person plural) 1 Cor. 11,26.
I've found a homily by pope John Paul II touching on this topic, given on Corpus Christi 2000 during the International Eucharistic Congress in Rome: link in English

Smvanrode, have you any (verifiable) knowledge on the origin of this acclamation? I've anecdotal evidence that the Latin tekst is actually an almost(!) literal translation of a Dutch original (written by a former priest, still alive, ca.1964) which is still the official tekst of the acclamation in the Dutch translation of the Roman missal, see link in Dutch.
(BTW will this be adjusted to the Latin wording in the new translation?)

To clarify (see inside the link):
"As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"
(1 Cor 11: 26) becomes "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory" in the acclamation (my emphasis).

Peculiar detail: the Dutch version has the 'we', but the last half sentence remains "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes", without addressing the Lord directly as it is in Latin and English. The Dutch text predates the NO.

as reviewed here - https://www.ccwatershed.org/2017/06/12/liturgical-reflections-papal-master-ceremonies/

The Brazilian translations stubbornly remain incorrect, too, in many parts of the Mass. I think most parishioners and even some clergy are totally unaware of it, so it's no longer an act of rebellion but just habit.

But on the topic, I'd love other recommendations on the original subject.

Yes, it gives grace in the same way.

What it doesn't often do, doesn't do under most parish circumstances, doesn't yet do till the reform of the reform is complete, is easily dispose people to grace through recollection and beauty.

The OF lectionary gives us a much richer understanding of the development of salvation history. And in a language we can understand. The traditional lectionary had very little of the Old Testament, the assertion in the Gospels that Jesus was fulfilling the prophesies is fundamental, but pretty meaningless if you don't hear the prophets.

"elegant costumes" I can still hear clearly the comment of one of our catechumens, a Nigerian lady, as the Archbishop entered in procession at the Rite of Election. 'Ooh! I wish I could afford a material like that to make a dress'.

To get back to the original question:

Pope Benedict didn't say that the modern Missal contains a lot of added elements of spiritual richness and theological depth that aren't in the older missal. There might be some.

But I think of that exhortation as running the other way. The modern Missal at least contains many elements of spiritual richness and theological depth that were transmitted unchanged from the old one, and his exhortation to celebrate Mass correctly and beautifully can help priests to convey those goods to the faithful.

@CharlesW

That "traditional" mass is hardly of all time. It was put together after Trent.

So what Missal were the Canons of Rome using before Trent? It has a striking similarity to the Missal promulgated by Pius V. Including the lack of Sequences!

To me, the debate between the OF and the EF is like a real estate agent trying to move out of the home I've lived in all my life to a new model, on the grounds that it's new with all the up-to-date accessories, is energy-efficient and easy to maintain, and has a more functional floor plan.

"Yes," I reply, "but it isn't my home."

BHCordova,

You pastor didn't make the claim that it goes back in unbroken use from the 2nd century to the present, though.

Fr. Hunwicke has written about EP II,

I would add the briefest and humblest footnote to Mr Sire's admirable demolition of "Eucharistic Prayer II". This prayer is taken from a very ancient Roman prayer by Hippolytus. Except ... current scholarship is convinced that this identification, widely accepted in the 1960s, is completely wrong. The document concerned is less ancient than was thought; did not originate in Rome; and has nothing to do with Hippolytus. Sire's already cogent argument is thus made very much stronger.

More here,
https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/09/hippolytus-or-second-eucharistic-prayer.html
Also,
https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/search?q=+Eucharistic+Prayer

On the original question, is it assumed that any theological riches already present in the EF don't count as riches of the OF?

I think those silences are important, too, and have incorporated them whenever possible.

- a greater emphasis on approaching the Eucharist as a participation in the sacrificium laudis of Christ, next to an adoration of Christ in the realis praesentia.

I do like this particularly about the OF. As far as I know, the GIRM was the first to include directives for the posture and actions of the people. Deeper, I think, than the wishy-washy reasoning given for this ("a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the sacred Liturgy,") is that it emphasises the role which the faithful play in the sacrifice. It is "my sacrifice and yours". We are all members of the Royal Priesthood of Christ.

The problem is that the breviary was way out of reach to most laity prior to the Council.

This really is not true (at least in England), Vespers was celebrated in many churches every Sunday, this was destroyed when Sunday evening Mass was invented. Vespers was a popular service and was followed by Benediction. The small insignificant parish I go to in London, has sets of books covered in dust to sing Vespers (Ratisbonne editions) in a cupboard in the choir loft!

Terse was usually sung or recited before Sunday Mass in many places, and Lauds is not an unusual thing to see advertised on church bulletins pre 1960. Also pick up one of the hand missals (c.1900-1962) for the laity and you will find Vespers in addition to the Mass Propers. Editions of the 'Day hours in Latin and English' were also popular, Burns and Oates published the edition in my possession in 1914, 1917, 1921, 1928, and 1935.

The Liturgy of the Hours does not encourage lay use just look at the books. I can follow all the Divine Office day hours in Latin and English for everyday of the year in a book that fits in a pocket, 6" x 3½" x 1½". A similar sized books covers Matins, and is still in print after 100 years!
My Liber can be used to sing the Little hours, Vespers and Lauds for almost every day of the Year, as well as Mass for almost every day of the year, 7½" x 5" x 2". This book is also still in print and has been in print continuously since around 1900.
My Antiphonal can be used to sing the complete day hours for the whole year, 8" x 5" x 2". My shelves have large numbers of books publish for the use of the Laity so they could follow the Divine Office, published by a least 6 different commercial publishers! I have missed out the best thing about the Divine Office, I can take my books to France, Germany and Switzerland (and no doubt many other countries and also follow the Office!

Over 1/3rd of the Catholics I know are following at least part of the Divine Office everyday, most are following the prayers in Latin, some in just English. From surveys of N.O. catholics most do no know the LOTH exists.

Of course this is in England and we know from research that The Mass and Office were both popular devotions before the Reformation.

As for comments about badly celebrated E.F. Masses, I can cite the N.O. is badly celebrated in most places!

My Antiphonal can be used to sing the complete day hours for the whole year, 8" x 5" x 2".

I can do the same with Les Heures Grégoriennes, for the LOTH. I have Latin on one side, and French on the other (I am of francophone origin). The books (3 volumes but you only need one volume at a time) are bigger than 8x5x2, but at least the type is in a size my 62 y.o. eyes can handle. I'm betting that with that smaller book I'd have to get more powerful reading glasses.

I hang out on Catholic forums and you'd be surprised at the number of laity taking up the LOTH. It's far from zero. Of course as an oblate I've been doing it for quite a while; there are at least 4 of us oblates that actually chant the LOTH in Latin, in fact most of the Catholics I know are oblates so almost all of the Catholics I know pray the Liturgy of the Hours or its monastic equivalent, not 1/3.

In the old Breviary, Matins is where the longer OT readings would be and the real teaching occurring along with the patristic readings. I doubt very many laity assisted at Matins unless visiting a monastery. I do recite the Office of Readings every day. Moreover the brevity of the new "breviary" has made it possible for me to do the entirety of the Liturgy of the Hours every day. So while the cycle is longer (4 weeks vs 1 week), I get exposure to almost all the psalms with the exception of the unfortunate omissions, and the equally unfortunate designation of some psalms as "seasonal"; but nothing's perfect in life.

As for comments about badly celebrated E.F. Masses, I can cite the N.O. is badly celebrated in most places!

Can we assert that the Tridentine Mass was always well-celebrated in all places pre-Council? Was there never bad music (Gregorian chant poorly done is murder on the ears)? Were *all* Masses solemn High Masses, or were most not low Masses, some speed-read in 15 minutes? See my comment from my spiritual director above. Can you say for certain that the disobedient priests of today would suddenly become perfectly obedient if the EF Mass were imposed on them? If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida for sale. They'd just have more rubrics to break or "innovate" around.

The problem isn't the OF. The problem is one of discipline, something that imposition of the EF would not magically fix. Not every diocesan priest has the FSSP or ICK priests' devotion to the EF.

Ora

I'm betting that with that smaller book I'd have to get more powerful reading glasses.

Text height is ⅛" so reasonably readable, I can read it without my glasses and my eyesight is not very good.

or its monastic equivalent, not 1/3.

Most people I know are families with very young children so while it is 1/3rd now it will be a lot higher soon. A popular present for the confirmation children is the monastic Diurnal. Gave a copy to my Godson and he was delighted.

I note that people seem to think with the E.F. in the past most people were having quick Masses, and devotion was poor as an excuse for the N.O. being not a wonderful experience in so many places. All I assert and give evidence that many things worked before the 60's and in many places the Faith was booming, this all came to an end in the 70's, I wonder why?

As for

buying liturgical books was very difficult for the laity

Most churches in England still have their own bookstore, so buying Missals etc. has been easy (for at least 100 years). While these books would have been expensive the sheer number of editions and printings show that people were buying these books, and are still buying these books in reprinted / re typeset versions. It should be remembered that my copy of the "Day hours" would only have been useful for the laity, as a religious bound to say the Office would have to have a copy of the old 4 Vol. Breviary. It would be difficult to avoid Vespers as it would be advertised each week!

A friend has done some research, and found,

in 1893 48% of churches in the 'London' part of the Archdiocese of Westminster were singing Vespers on Sundays - quite impressive really.

https://ordorecitandi.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-happened-to-vespers.html

I have now looked up my diocese, in 1913 of the 53 Churches (In South London), 18 (34%) had Sunday Vespers, another 9 (17%) had an evening service that possibly included either Vespers or Compline, and another 16 (30%) had evening devotions.
https://archive.org/details/catholicdirecto1913unse_3/page/392/mode/2up
I suspect these churches were not empty!

The loss of the devotions & services @tomjaw lists was a grievous blow to piety, but occured before the Council. That is a reflection of the priorities of the clergy in the fifties
Between being instructed, at 11, in the structure and rubrics of the Mass, and 1963, I participated in about 1500 celebrations, about 600 as server at weekday Low Mass at a side altar in Ealing Abbey. What was very noticeable was the variation among monks. Some rattled through faster than I could speed read, one stood out for his care and deliberation. Years later the obituary of the latter said "for him the Mass was the still point of a turning world", and I thought ¡exactly!
I never saw anything worse than gabbling, which was of course inaudible to the congregation. However the girl who became my wife related that in central Dublin on a weekday, she had gone to a Mass at which, as the celebrant proceeded to the altar a fellow friar ascended into the pulpit and lead a rapid fire rosary throughout, except for a pause and genuflection at the consecration.

Can we assert that the Tridentine Mass was always well-celebrated in all places pre-Council? Was there never bad music (Gregorian chant poorly done is murder on the ears)? Were *all* Masses solemn High Masses, or were most not low Masses, some speed-read in 15 minutes?

I remember some priests competing to see who could say the mass fastest. Some of them could really rap it out to the point it could be hard to understand. I also remember priests waiting until one minute after midnight Friday night to go to a popular restaurant for hamburgers. There were always rules and regulations and always priests who were good at getting around them.

When I was an altar server, we had a couple of priests that competed as to how fast they could get a wedding done. One bragged he had done one in 7 minutes. When they said Mass, it never lasted a full hour.

To disparage our sacred rites by blaming the erroneous who abused them seems rather like kissing the Christ in the Garden.

My understanding is that, in the 1950s, Mass attendance in Europe was on the decline, even though many in the U.S. consider this period the Golden Age of Catholicism. The idea was by using the vernacular it would increase Mass attendance.

@bhcordova

Don't know about Mass attendance in Europe but in England we have massive rises in baptisms and ordinations in the 1950's....
https://lms.org.uk/statistics
and
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55776120@N08/sets/72157633478538615
Now the 1960's onwards well...

I know that when the sixties hit, the world and the church had become rather chaotic. The younger folks wanted nothing to do with what their parents did. The infamous "pill" came along, which I think undercut church authority and practice far more than any liturgical changes. It tampered with the family, which had been the bedrock of the church. People were restless and I think political unrest, changing roles, and weak of knee leadership added to the chaos. I lived through all of it. Latin masses wouldn't have made much difference, that being another thing many folks were ready to jettison. Add some misguided ecumenism to the mix. Too many of our priests looked at the Protestants down the street with their large salaries, new buildings, flourishing social programs, and large parking lots always full and were simply envious. That didn't work out too well, did it? In the formation and education of the new priests at the time, social work was heavily promoted. Is it any wonder that so many were good social workers but bad priests? This could have been a reason a number of them left the priesthood.