Benton

And that kind of thing would become more likely if the pre-conciliar use were to become the default, rather than in the care of communities that are self-selected to desire the proper ars celebranda for it.

When it does, it’s not because of the rite, but, generally, of people not following the rite. In your discussion, you should at least be aware of the fact that you take a behavioral approach. One aspect is that the prescriptive nature of liturgical instructions (rubrics tell you what to do) is mixed up with a proscriptive interpretation (if it isn’t forbidden by the rubrics, it’s allowed). This isn’t evoked by the current Missal, but a result of a divergence that hasn’t been corrected thoroughly.

A most excellent point and well received.

@Benton

Any priest who feels so inclined could choose to not follow the rubrics of the ‘62 or ‘55 missal. He could choose to celebrate versus populum.

The TLM is celebrated ad orientem, in a number of Roman basilica's the TLM has always been celebrated on the high Altar ad orientem and also ad populum.

So it is not wrong to celebrate the TLM ad populum.

With the very strong rubrics that leave no room for novelties, and de Defectibus, the TLM Missal is not easily messed around with. This is a feature not a bug.

The premise is that the Novus Ordo does not belong to the Church anymore ( or maybe never did) but belongs solely to the priest.[...] If he fell over dead tomorrow, the diocese could send another priest that might not carry the same stylistic points. Thus, the parish is at the mercy of the priest at the moment.

So, two thoughts.

One, as correctly pointed out above, that's largely a not-following-the-rite problem. It's not inherent to the NO, but it's certainly facilitated by it by the sheer number of options permitted even within the scope of licit and normal.

Second, I'll share my experience in my NO parish, because we have two priests (a pastor and a parochial vicar), and it's vastly different experiences.

I'll preface this by saying I've always gone to NO parishes, but have gone to TLM a handful of times when the opportunity has arisen. Otherwise, my nearest TLM is 2.5 hours away, so I just go to my local parish. I don't think I've gone to TLM twice with the same priest, but the experience has been quite uniform every time I've gone.

So, our parochial vicar is a fairly new priest, having been ordained in the past 5-6ish years. Like the majority of the recent ordinations in our diocese, he's not super young, having come to the priesthood after already having another career (IDK if that makes a difference or not - my experience has been that these men have lived a "normal" life for years before entering seminary, and it's gives them a different outlook from those experiences IMO).

I adore when Fr. Parochial Vicar is saying Mass. He is so careful, so reverent, so by-the-book. It's beautiful. He consistently says the Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon), his homilies are relatively short but very to-the-point and always makes me think about what he has to say. He is meticulous about the rubrics, so careful with the hosts (and so incredibly aware of each crumb and fragment of those hosts), and spends a great deal of his time in prayer and contemplation, yet is very approachable and friendly and easy to talk to - he always has time for us. He takes his time to get the important things right. You get the sense of the sacred when it's "his" Mass. He's also highly predictable - as a musician, I know exactly what to expect in tone, text, and process, precisely because he's so wedded to the rubrics and will consistently do the same options.

Contrast that to Fr. Pastor. While I get that he's much busier, being the leader of our parish and involved with other things at the diocesan level, his Masses are more... I'm not sure if "rushed" is the right word here, but there's definitely a forward momentum that drags you along. Everything is always the shortest version possible, he's always moving, and there's very much a sense of having to "get this done". Don't misinterpret me - I also love Fr. Pastor. He is a good and holy man and a very wise priest and I'm thankful for his energy and presence. But Mass is a *very* different experience with him. As a musician, it's sometimes difficult to keep up with him, in the sense that you're never sure if he's going to follow the rubrics exactly, or he will spontaneously want you to play/sing something specific, you're never sure of the order of things (this is especially true for funerals), so you have to be on your toes. If he has three choices, he may do three different things in three different Masses (then again, maybe not - you never know).

Would we have the same contrast with the TLM? Perhaps. Fr. Pastor's perpetual energy and need to move on to the next task would be there, so I imagine that sense of urgency would still be present. But there couldn't be shortcuts, or resequencing or any of the other things that tend to give me headaches. Fr. Parochial Vicar would still be careful and reverent as ever. But the core of the Mass would be identical. As it is, right now, they are very different Masses between the two priests, so yes, in that sense, the NO "belongs to the priest", and not the people.

It disagree strongly that this variability with the OF is a bug as opposed to a feature. The degree to which things vary creates a highly unstable liturgical environment. There is a much, much higher capacity for variability in the OF. A huge part of this, in my view (and which doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread thus far) is the lack of firm rubrical distinction between sung and spoken Mass. Maybe the collect is spoken but the post communion is sung. Maybe the preface is spoken but the preface dialogues are sung, or vice versa. Spoken Kyrie, followed by sung Gloria. Etc. I'd imagine that there are thousands of different combinations possible, and this is baked in. Yes the Old Mass can be said poorly, abused by lack of care for the rubrics, etc. But the sheer amount of PERFECTLY LICIT options in the OF absolutely create liturgical instability and permit lack of continuity, even between different clerics at the same parish at the same time. With that in mind, I absolutely agree with Kevin's assessment.

trentonjconn - I don't see your problem; why have a firm distinction between sung and spoken masses? How does it matter to me in the pew which bits are sung and which said more than the fact that the words of the propers change day by day?

An opera house whose dominant repertoire was turned into all recitative with a not necessarily related musical overlay would be an even greater profound disappointment.

Indulging the practical preference of clerics to avoid chanting is a vast-scale form of clerical whim.

Letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Rome
September 25, 1969

Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequdam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted, which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

We are certain that these considerations. which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father. not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic World.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci
Feast of St. Pius X

The issue of the Novus Ordo was addressed head on by the highest offices of the Vatican. It was bypassed and the Church has succumbed to a great apostasy. The truth about the N.O. was clearly and plainly addressed. If you want to read the study, please do so.

A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae by a group of Roman Theologians

(I have always maintained that the N.O. is the property of [a] reprobate mind(s). The proof is in the pudding, and the problems continue to proliferate, the Church continues on the path of its own “self-demolition” (I think those are the words of a previous pope. Please clarify if you remember))

I think it is interesting that the previous pope tried to disqualify the TLM once for all in his MOTU and it is truly an almost indisputable proof of the apex of a self-destructive organism.