@MatthewRoth

Yup, I see your point. I checked the Ordo Romanus Primus, and indeed we find the same flow as that of the old missal:

"Having sung the anthem of the introit for the last time, the choir sing the Kyries, until the pope signs to the precentor to make and end. When the last Kyrie eleison has been sung, the pope turns round towards the people and intones the "Gloria in excelsis"..."

Regarding the Agnus Dei, that part that was added was to emphasize the Mass as a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. I don't think anyone was arguing that every change was meant to increase the dialogical nature of the Mass. It was one of the aims of the reforms, but most definitely wasn't the only one.

@MatthewRoth

Can you please point to anywhere in the Mass or rubrics that objectively makes the priest the "main character"?

The postconciliar liturgy is not itself the problem. Anyone who suggests that it is does not think with the mind of the Church. The Ecumenical Council Vatican II used its apostolic authority to mandate liturgical reform, and the new Mass was promulgated with proper ecclesiastical authority.

Pope Francis had something to say about priests who do not preside well in Desiderio Desideravi:

54. If it is true that the ars celebrandi is required of the entire assembly that celebrates, it is likewise true that ordained ministers must have a very particular concern for it. In visiting Christian communities, I have noticed that their way of living the liturgical celebration is conditioned — for better or, unfortunately, for worse — by the way in which their pastor presides in the assembly. We could say that there are different “models” of presiding. Here is a possible list of approaches, which even though opposed to each other, characterize a way of presiding that is certainly inadequate: rigid austerity or an exasperating creativity, a spiritualizing mysticism or a practical functionalism, a rushed briskness or an overemphasized slowness, a sloppy carelessness or an excessive finickiness, a superabundant friendliness or priestly impassibility. Granted the wide range of these examples, I think that the inadequacy of these models of presiding have a common root: a heightened personalism of the celebrating style which at times expresses a poorly concealed mania to be the centre of attention. Often this becomes more evident when our celebrations are transmitted over the air or online, something not always opportune and that needs further reflection. Be sure you understand me: these are not the most widespread behaviours, but still, not infrequently assemblies suffer from being thus abused.

The problem is not the new Mass. The problem is poor ars celebrandi. The new Mass actually demands more of the priest and the assembly in ars celebrandi than the TLM. Unfortunately, that hasn't been realized in many parishes or cathedrals. That's part of why Desiderio Desideravi calls for liturgical formation among Catholics, so that the liturgy, the new Mass, can be celebrated as it deserves to be and as it ought to be.

The Novus Ordo: creating problems of ars celebrandi since 1969

Mark, take it up with Cardinal Ratzinger/BXVI, when you pass from this life then. I have negative things to say, whereas others think that this is a feature, not a bug, but it is just a fact that these things are mandated by the rubrics.

If Francis provided an enforcement mechanism and actually enforced liturgical law and made his actions match his own words, then I would take him more seriously, but there is nothing to that strategy. Plus, liturgical abuse is not why I prefer the traditional Mass, although it does sometimes (often) send people looking for the TLM.

DD is also problematic because the liturgy is reduced to the Mass, and really, while I have seen overly-pious to the point of slow and scrupulous priests at the TLM, Francis complaining about this at the NO is ridiculous because it’s not even a blip on the radar screen given that while not everything is abuse or overly focused on the priest, the baseline is just mediocre and lacking in dignity. The latter is problematic, and it would behoove diocesan clergy to spend a few weeks with a trad community (FSSP, ICRSP, or one of the French monasteries — including Clear Creek of course) so that ceremonious things might be done more ceremoniously regardless of the book used.

That, but also Benediction, which even at the best of times is missing something. Or hearing confessions… and so on. Or learning about vestments that are within a parish’s means but are actually traditional (just because it looks traditional doesn’t mean anything — it’s a lot like buying a good suit, actually).

This is probably how I would explain neo-conservative Catholicism, and its evolution: a focus on doctrine and particularly its application to important political concerns downplayed by political and ecclesiastical liberals, while neglecting aesthetics, to attempting a partial recovery of the latter without understanding ritual and that simply appearing ecclesiastical is not what makes something beautiful and appropriate for divine worship. There also is a low ceiling — imposed without realizing that the style doesn’t matter so long as you can do the traditional thing. Roman (like the ICRSP seminary), neo-Gothic, a mix of it all… it doesn’t matter when you seek out the best and execute the ceremonies in a dignified way, manifesting the interior recollection which they bring. It doesn’t really matter if you have a fully freestanding altar, a partial one (reredos away from the wall), or an altar below a reredos on the apse wall, or if the tabernacle is separate or not. But the neocon preference for altars that face the people with ad orientem deliberately frustrated… what are we doing?

I am positive that many of us understand how this works with music. Doing the NO Mass with all five propers and the whole chanted Ordinary is pretty rare due to actual opposition, not just difficulties or even local politics. Replacing the psalm with the gradual is unthinkable.

@trentonjconn

The new Mass actually demands more of the priest and the assembly in ars celebrandi than the TLM.
Citation needed.

Well the N.O. Mass does require more from us,
1. It requires we break off our prayers to shake everybody's hand within at least 6 foot.
2. It requires that we stand up and sit down in unison with our neighbours.
3. It requires that we respond vocally and audibly to various banal phrases uttered by the presider.
4. It requires us to sing any rubbish that sadly appears in the various song books that pollute too many churches.
5. It requires that we make all the actions when the assembly sings the 'wiggly worm' song! 'If I was a wiggly worm I would thank the Lord for making me squirm'.

I could go on...