The claim has been made many a time, right?
But we all know that some of the most fiery ("inflammatory," I'm sure some would complain) content has never hit the ears of many NO-ers, at Mass...

I'm sure you both know that only the EF was considered to suffer from a deficiency.

The glaring passage that was removed and doesn't appear anywhere in the NO lectionary nor in the antiphons is St. Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:26-27 about unworthy reception of the Eucharist.

More here:
https://www.ccwatershed.org/2021/06/04/someone-did-something-bad-inexplicable-documents-included/

I worked in the LCMS from 2011-15. If you are curious about their praxis, take a look at the front section of their official hymnal and service book. Their order for the Eucharist starts on p. 27 here. http://lsb.cph.org/samples/LSB_Sampler.pdf

There are no bishops in the historic sense, but rather District Presidents and one national president, elected by the clergy and laity of the various geographic regions. They function like bishops, but serve limited terms and are not ordained to an episcopate. There is not the 3-fold apostolic concept of bishop, priest, and deacon, but a pastor-priest is the only thing going, and elevation to greater authority as a DP is just a matter of doing a different job for a bit, and then returning to parish ministry or retiring.

I mention all this because there is no strong authority to tell all the parishes in a region or nationally that they must do only what’s in the official service book, or cannot leave parts out, or should not use guitars, or whatever. Each pastor is on his (no women) own and there are different schools of thought about what’s permissible. The hierarchy is devoted to enforcing doctrinal and cultural positions, but not liturgical praxis. So denying a young earth and a 7-day creation, or arguing for women’s ordination is grounds for defrocking; deciding to celebrate the Eucharist in jeans and a t-shirt is not.

You can see from the link I gave what’s the baseline liturgy. Of the two parishes I served, the first was typical; the second was an outlier, as follows.

Parish 1:
-Offered “traditional” and “contemporary” services. At the former, it was organ or piano and choir and tended to loosely follow the book, except that the lectionary was ignored in favor of whatever readings fit the sermon series. Random pieces would go missing from Sunday to Sunday (no Kyrie, skip the Gloria, or skip the creed to save time; sing someone’s new metric paraphrase of the Sanctus, insert a new responsive confession of sin, etc.) but the skeleton was recognizable. Words onscreen and in printed bulletins; hymnals not present.
-At the latter, it was a set by the band and then a long, long sermon (40+ min). Communion hastily tacked on sometimes.

Parish 2 was probably the most high-church parish in the whole LCMS; at least in the top 5. It was a wonderful place, jammed with young families and built a beautiful new space just before I arrived. Things they did that raised eyebrows in the synod, and in visitors from other parishes:
-Followed the book to the letter, without fail
-Added in the NO minor propers from Catholic sources, eg Fr. Weber, or in Latin on feast days
-Wore chasubles for the Eucharist and copes at Offices
-Used a common chalice and phased out Methodist shot glasses
-Had a big crucifix and various icons
-Used incense
-Clergy actually sang the sung portions of the liturgy printed in the book
-Sang congregational songs from Taizé, and also polyphony in Latin
-Clergy genuflected at the elevations and communion of the celebrant
-Made the sign of the cross

I'm late to reply to this:

All the changes you mentioned were in the realm of practice or discipline, not in the realm of belief or doctrine.

Although in the popular mind changes in practice could be construed as implying changes in doctrine, it's not the case at all.

Ora et labora... arguably, the changes in discipline surrounding the Eucharist are indeed proper to the realm of belief, as we've seen an unprecedented precipitous decline in belief in the Real Presence even among the few who still attend Mass. It would seem quite obvious that praxis affects belief, and therefore does not deserve a mutually-exclusive category all its own.

I'll go a step further, in regard to "less" or "more of Holy Writ in the Mass.


Before the OF can claim "more", it has to get back to the starting line:

1) The prayers at the foot of the altar are missing from every OF Mass. ( Ps 42)
2) The prayer for the washing of the hands of the priest is not six verses Ps. 25, or even a part of ps 25, but a single verse from Ps. 50.
3) The first Sunday of Lent: does it include the whole of Ps 90, or even 12 verses of it?
4) The EF has a gradual and an Alleluia (or a gradual and a tract, or two alleluias) between the Epistle and Gospel, so even if the text is repeated there is still more in the EF than the OF.
5) Vigils, in the EF, are their own set Mass, distinct from the follow day's Mass. Every time, therefore, that there's a vigil, in the EF, there is distinct Scripture which isn't in the repeated Mass Sat/Sun.

I'll go a step further, in regard to "less" or "more of Holy Writ in the Mass.

Yes, but of what earth shaking importance is this? There is an abundance of scripture in the mass whether examples you mentioned or something else. One complaint I have heard is that we are scriptured to death in the current mass. I have noticed the sermons have also lengthened to fill the time available. I remember thinking some years ago that we were aping the Protestants a bit too much.

4) The EF has a gradual and an Alleluia (or a gradual and a tract, or two alleluias) between the Epistle and Gospel, so even if the text is repeated there is still more in the EF than the OF.

Except the Alleluia is about the same length of text in EF and OF, and the Gradual actually includes less scripture than the RP does in the OF.

Calling it the Roman Rite doesn't make it the Roman Rite anymore than me calling myself the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth makes it so.

Your Majesty, we could call it A Roman Rite. Kidding, of course. Or perhaps a rite of Rome?

CharlesW: Calling it A Roman Rite works, because it is: just like the Sarum Mass and the Dominican Mass and the now-defunct Missal of the Diocese of Rome are all Roman Rites--Rites and Uses of the Roman liturgical family. Calling it the Pauline Use works, too. But the differences between the Roman Rite (Missal, Office, Ritual, Pontifical) and the Pauline Rite (Missal, Office, Ritual, Pontifical) are too vast. Calling the Novus Ordo Missae the Roman Rite is like calling the 1662 BCP liturgies the Sarum Rite: BCP is part of the Sarum Tradition, but they aren't the same thing, and no one pretends that they are. And this is why "Reform of the Reform" died years ago: The two liturgies are different, and there is no reason to try to make them identical. The Pauline Rite has a place in the Church, as do many historical Rites, and the historical Roman Rite, the Roman Rite, should too.

a_f_hawkins: Yes. Insomuch as it continues the illusion that Paul VI's "New Order of Mass" and all of the 'revised' (really, re-written) liturgical books are the Roman Rite. I like the Sarum Rite, and I like the BCP, but no one in his right mind would consider them the same thing. I like the Novus Ordo--celebrated well--though I prefer the Roman Mass, but they are not the same thing.

Just as an aside: When I say that the N.O. and R.R. are not the same, I am not comparing Clown Mass with Fr. Bob to Solemn Pontifical Mass with Cardinal Burke: I am comparing the books themselves. If I have a mental picture at all it's CMAA Novus Ordo with Msgr Wadsworth and CMAA Roman Rite with Msgr Wadsworth.

Salieri, you might want to familiarize yourself with how the Roman Rite is structured. A Rite refers to a particular stable liturgical tradition in the Universal Church. The Pauline Mass is just as Roman as the Tridentine Mass as both were promulgated by and for universal use in the Roman Rite in their own times, saying the former isn’t Roman is silly. They are now officially referred to as the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite respectively. Branching out of the Roman Rite are Uses (such as the Anglican, Zaire, or proposed Amazon Uses) which were promulgated for specific ecclesiastical or cultural communities.

The problem, I've found, with RotR, and why I think it failed is that it turned from getting rid of liturgical abuse and bad taste--a major problem with the "roll-out" of the Novus Ordo is that it occurred during the "Dark Age of Bad Taste and Minimalism" from ca 1945-2000, which peaked from 1960-1980--to the Tridentification of the Novus Ordo. If people had wanted the "Tridentine" Mass they would have gone to it, particularly in the past few years.

It's one thing to get rid of the 1970s and start using traditional vestments of worthy material, get rid of lousy music in favor of sacred music, including Gregorian Chant and Polyphony, but not in a way that doesn't acknowledge the intrinsic differences between the Novus Ordo and the Roman Mass.

pfreese: The so-called "Tridentine Mass" is the Roman Mass, the revision of the Missal promulgated by St Pius V was a revision of the Curial Missal: Not a complete re-write. In the 16th century and earlier, in which Missals were copied by hand mistakes and odd variances arose--the Tridentine revision occured to create a reliable Urtext, if you will, that all future books should adhere to; it was NOT a wholesale change. The structure of the Liturgy remained as it had always been, the calendar may have been purged of some errors, but whole seasons of the Liturgical Year were not expunged. What happened in the Pauline 'reform' was not that: It was wholesale change. There are more similarities between the Dominican Rite and the Old Roman Rite than there are between the so-called "two forms" of the Roman Rite. For a single Rite to have two forms that are so completely different from each other is almost schizophrenic.

As much as I prefer the Traditional Mass, perhaps S.P. was a failure, and should be abrogated: It's one thing for a Rite to have local Uses for specific places or orders, but those Uses are never used outside of those places or orders; to have two universally permitted uses of the same rite (to use S.P.'s terminology) doesn't make sense, and harms the unity of the Rite. In which case it only makes sense that one "form" is abrogated from Universal use, and relegated to the status of the use of an order(s), if permitted at all.

Tridentification of the Novus Ordo

I agree with Salieri... SP is erroneous in that it tries to define the NO and VO as one and the same rite. The TLM IS THE Latin Rite. In the words of the one who put forward SP, the NO is a “banal fabrication”. I think BXVI was a bit confused himself.

the OF normally has a 'responsorial psalm' of about 4 strophes (8 verses) AND an Alleluia verse or other acclamation, while the EF traditionally has only one verse of the Gradual sung and one Alleluia verse

Have you seen the graduals and tracts during Lent??

Perhaps so, but that is at one point in the mass. I feel relatively safe in thinking there are parts of the OF that are longer. I know the psalms are not as chopped up as in the EF. I would hate to see the value of mass come down to who has the highest word count.

Nothing wrong with scripture although I will agree its placement is not always relevant or useful. Much of the objection to some scriptures is more akin to "you changed something," than to whether it has any bearing on the mass. The church can change things and has a legitimate right to do so when it considers it necessary, or when it wants to change the emphasis at a particular point in the liturgy. The church had no obligation to canvas the flock before instituting the Novus Ordo. One can object to it on several other grounds but not on arguing the church had no right to change it. Could they have done it better, I think so. But they could also have done it worse.

"Tobit Week" is always a special occurrence...

OK, 'splain' yourself, Lucy. There are no such verses.

That should have read 5:16, and 11:4 ! Nothing quite like mistyping a jest.
... and the young man's dog was with them. (Tob. 5:16 RSV)
... and the dog went along behind them. (Tob. 11:4 RSV)

Charles,

There are some people who object to change of any kind. I'm well familiar with such a person, who complained that we weren't singing I am the Bread of Life out of the correct book! (It was a loooong time ago!) By using the book I had chosen, I made the music more plentifully available, but he was having none of it, since I had used the RED book.

The people who object to change say things such as, "We've always had girls serving at the altar, and now you say we can't!" or "We can't do that chant stuff: it's boring and in a language nobody knows. We need our traditional Catholic music." and such like.

Traditional Catholics don't (in my experience) oppose all change everywhere. They oppose change implemented just for the sake of change.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Much of the postconcilliar "reform" is the work of the Good Idea Fairy.

Salieri,

What else is in the opus of the Good Idea Fairy?

I am also mystified when a few verses are left out of the Sunday readings (OF). For instance, Sunday June 20, Twelfth Sunday in Ordinary Time:
Jb 38:1, 8-11

Why leave out verses 2-7? Who puts the lectionary together? They are expurgating the Bible.

The Lord addressed Job out of the storm and said:
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--
while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
Who shut within doors the sea,
when it burst forth from the womb;
when I made the clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling bands?
When I set limits for it
and fastened the bar of its door,
and said: Thus far shall you come but no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stilled!

Hawkins,

There's the offertory, Vir erat in terra Hus.

As to verses at Communion in EF: CMAA published a book containing multiple Psalm verses which could be sung. Granted, those verses were rarely (if ever) sung/heard at EF celebrations in typical parishes--but they are there.