I daresay today's TLM Epistle, Gradual, Tract, and Gospel took longer than the First Reading, Responsorial Psalm, Second Reading, Gospel Acclamation, and Gospel of the new rite. I can certainly relate to readings "read too quickly and in a boring, humdrum tone." #1 unfortunately presumes that even in a well-celebrated Mass the scripture will merely be read, not chanted. When it comes to the vernacular, does the novus ordo have nothing to learn from the Eastern Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans?

does the novus ordo have nothing to learn from...

...the Vetus Ordo?

I understand that it is allowed, but I have never encountered chanted vernacular readings in the old rite.

We agree, MJO. And if they can 'line up' OT readings which bear on the NT readings, so much the better....

Who is Fr. Rulfs and why should we care about his opinion?

He is a paradox.
He knows all the right stuff -
but acts like the enemy.

His book, which Mad mentioned, is an excellent treatment of Christian ritual music in history and practice - excellent if one filters out his rather eccentric (and sometimes polemical with regard to his notion of 'reform') opinions. The book is expensive, but well worth having.

To repeat -
He is well versed and highly knowledgeable about the Church's music, but acts like the enemy.

I know little of Ruff, but wasn't Rembert Weakland, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, an expert on chant? It seems a bit odd when I encounter these guys who have great knowledge, but use it to undermine rather than build up their subject areas. Why study and learn something if you don't believe in it? Go figure.

Well my .02 is that we have elevated the spoken word above everything else in the Mass. There is this intense NEED to UNDERSTAND every word as soon as it is spoken, thus the drive for venacular (And I have heard it said) that music must never be more important than this spoken word, so music must always be relegated to second place in the liturgy...
I think that sometimes the old rite has to appeal for us in that we don't have the need to understand every word, and everything all the time, the music can sometimes 'overwhelm' the words that the priest speaks - indeed, some of what he says is said quietly under the sound of the music. This kind of this is ANETHEMA to modern liturgists - the idea that a priest could say something in a language that is not IMMEADIATLEY UNDERSTOOD BY THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY is a great sin that music be purged from out communities. And the rite has to be OWNED by the community, etc etc.

The reality is that there are many ways in which God can speak to his people. Music is a big way, and it is 'extra rational'. There are many ways of knowing beyond what the literal word says.

Better proclamation ,yes; more bible study, when? lectio divina, when? better preaching, fine but not based on mega-church style; short introductions -
That means more words, the 1973 did have inbuilt one sentence intros, when read by the reader they definitely did not work. But one line from the presider/homilist I can imagine being fruitful. Suppose the reader arrives at the ambo, turns to the celebrant, waits for an intro and then turns back to the congregation. A piece of theatrical 'business' which helps the congregation focus?

...must always be relegated to second place in the liturgy.

Ha!
If they only knew -
if they but truly understood -
the liturgy itself is music.

@madorganist

unfortunately presumes that even in a well-celebrated Mass the scripture will merely be read, not chanted.

The abbey I'm affiliated with chants all the readings, every day, in French, very beautifully I might add, at their OF Mass (which has Latin Gregorian propers and Latin/Greek Gregorian ordinary as well). Even the readings of Matins are chanted (albeit recto-tono, in French) and the short readings of the other hours are also chanted (in French, but with inflections).

Heck even the refectory readings are chanted (recto-tono, again, in French).

Outside the monastery (and others I've been to), not so much though...

Ora

I'd be surprised if it needed approval: liturgical documents of bishops' conferences only need approval if they add new regulations to those existing.

Are only iconoclasts and chic modernists who are disdainful of our patrimony of music and liturgical praxis, and the champions of scholarship molded by and ground through trendy thought grinders the only ones who are ever on committees and congregations who 'draft' influential documents, approved statements, and general directives?
Or does it just seem so?
And how did we get here?

MJO: Here is an observation, perhaps apropos (or not). It is certainly true (in my experience) in academia. Whether it is true in Church business I couldn't say.

Committees tend to be populated by people who (surprise) love to serve on committees. Those who think that committees are largely the work of the devil, or at least what he does in his spare time, tend (surprise) to avoid committees.

This fact has a tendency to produce self-perpetuating ideologies: Insofar as committees tend to produce results with which one disagrees, one will tend see them as the work of the devil.

It is one reason that tenure has become a joke at most institutions of higher education, to give just one example (on which I almost just succumbed to the temptation to elaborate).

Over at *Ostrowski's Website* < / hushed tones> he has a great article by the ever-illustrious Fr. Rutler, which is worth it for this quote alone:

“I like that old saying: God so loved the world that He did not send a committee; He sent His Son. My experience has been that the less people know what they’re doing, the more meetings they have.”

I like meetings if there are good refreshments before and during and after.
purple=off

Just don't invite those large people who eat all the snacks.

I represent that statement!

But Jesus did select a committee:

I guess that means Judas Iscariot is Patron Saint of those who eat all the snacks?

He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me.

What makes it difficult to take Vatican II seriously, at times - Byzantine here so no real stake in it - is that the Council said one thing and did another. One would almost think the Council Fathers were members of the U.S. Congress. It's the total disconnect between the two that doesn't add up. It seems clear that the council wanted the liturgy reformed, but I'm not so sure they endorsed what resulted. And now I hear folks wanting to canonize Paul VI, a totally inept pope, who never had any real control of the church or council. He may have been holy enough, but not a coherent or capable leader.

AA-1025

At first I thought that was a Liber Usualis page reference
at which I would find a Latin text to be translated.
Fail.
Google.com and Archive.org
gave me a non-scriptural text to ponder.

Chonak,

There are still people who aren't sure, and others who are sure it is actual documentation.

Wait, what, Chonak?!?

C'mon. Next you'll be telling me The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is nothing more than anti-Jewish fan fiction . . .

Today, with the option to use Year A readings for the Scrutinies, is a perfect example of why we only need a one year cycle.

If you want a one year cycle we do have it, just go to the EF. (I have not been to the OF for almost 20 years!)

One of the latest jabs from Fr. Ruff:
"I don’t blame people for having good experiences at the EF. I blame church authorities for allowing and promoting it."

As for the above I can see Fr. Ruff's point... If the OF is the fruit of the Council, and most importantly the reform that the Council Fathers called for, why do we need the EF? By allowing the EF the Church authorities are by implication saying that the OF has under achieved. By allowing the EF are we really giving the OF the time needed to become part of the culture as the EF had ably achieved. No better illustration of the effect of the EF on culture can be found here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult it is also well worth reading the actual text of the letter linked from the Wikipedia page.

Does it really help the crisis in the Church if all the young men, young women, and young families are not going to their Geographical parish but travelling to the EF?

I recall my mother saying "If girls are allowed to be altar servers, soon no boys will want to do it." She wasn't far off, we have mostly girl servers in my neck of the woods.