Firstly I should say the Masses at the Birmingham Oratory are anything but "ordinary." An average, ordinary Catholic Mass, for starters, will have the Priest behind the altar facing the people throughout. The traditional common direction of prayer, ad orientem, is preserved at the Oratory which means the Priest will face the same direction as the people, figuratively towards God, throughout the recitation of the Canon during the principle part of the Mass said at the Altar. This is visibly the greatest distinction, but I should like to take comparisons a step further, and briefly compare the way the 'Ordinary Use' of the Roman Rite, with its greatest solemnity, compares with the High Masses of old, to see how the missals truly differ.Back in November last year I wrote a post entitled "Aesthetics of the Mass" in which I described what I saw to be the difference in the old and new Rites. Since then I have assisted with my presence at three High Masses using the 1962 Missal (have a look here), and have an even better impression of how these, at the Oratory, differ from the usual High Mass on Sunday (the text of which can be found here). As I have tried to illustrate by the photo, the most striking distinction for me is the way the Ambone or lectern now predominates the first part of the Mass, with a microphone placed on the opposite side of the Sanctuary for the Priest to address all other parts (confiteor, prayers, etc). Although the Altar is still kissed and incensed, it plays very little role in the new Liturgy of the Word. 
In the 'Extraordinary Use' the Subdeacon sings the Epistle (usually of St Paul) from the right side of the Sanctuary (photo, right) and facing East (away from the People). A Gradual Psalm is then sung, and then the Alleluia verse, or a Tract, in which solemnity is afforded the Deacon who sings the Gospel on the opposite side of the Sanctuary facing North (or sideways to the people; photo, below). The Celebrant stands by the Altar and faces this preaching of the Holy Gospel.
In the 'Extraordinary Use' the Subdeacon sings the Epistle (usually of St Paul) from the right side of the Sanctuary (photo, right) and facing East (away from the People). A Gradual Psalm is then sung, and then the Alleluia verse, or a Tract, in which solemnity is afforded the Deacon who sings the Gospel on the opposite side of the Sanctuary facing North (or sideways to the people; photo, below). The Celebrant stands by the Altar and faces this preaching of the Holy Gospel.The new way of doing things is for all the preaching and reading to be done from a single place; the Ambone. The rationale is a unity between a dual nature of the presence of Christ in the Mass:
The Eucharist is light above all because at every Mass the liturgy of the Word of God precedes the liturgy of the Eucharist in the unity of the two "tables", the table of the Word and the table of the Bread.
(Mane Nobiscum Domine - Apostolic Letter of John Paul II)
I think it is a shame the way the Liturgy of the Word is centred in this single place, and by and large does not involve the celebrant (who represents Christ). A glorious feature of the High Mass in the Extraordinary Use is the dynamism and movement, symmetry and contrast in the first part of the Mass. At the Oratory, certain features are retained: the celebrant blesses incense and the Deacon for the reading of the Gospel, and does so from his chair rather than from the Altar. He remains seated during much of this. There is still a Gospel procession, which involves a transfer of the Gospel book from the Altar to the Ambone. Much of this still retains symbolism. But I feel great care needs to be taken, especially since the readings are now in the vernacular (as requested by the II Vatican Council, and now permitted even in the 1962 Liturgy). By no longer retaining Latin for the preaching of scriptures, and having the reader face us (including a lay reader for the First Reading, although the Oratory retains the Subdeacon for the Second Reading) we are presented with a situation where the "Mass of the Catechumens" becomes a reading of the Bible and exposition of it: the "Liturgy of the Word." The Mass becomes artificially fragmented and we are fooled into thinking Christ is present in equal measure through this reading of scriptures. Many churches have a seperation of the children for this first part because it is seen purely as catechesis, which is better achieved by lay people, on their level.The original division between the two parts of the Mass dates back to ancient Christian times, when those present were divided into the Catechumens, or Christians by desire and belief but not Baptism, and the Faithful. The former could take part in the initial readings, prayers and chants, but were not permitted to communicate or be present at Mass; they were dismissed before the Offertory. This division has not continued, except in the naming of the two parts of the Mass. Nowadays it seems there has been a theology based around Scripture which seeks to displace the sacramental presence of Christ. He is present in the Blessed Sacrament, above and before any other presence (such as presence in the believers gathered, or present in the Priest, or present in the Gospel). The whole Mass should prepare us to receive Christ in the Sacrifice of Calvary; ideally through receiving communion but also spiritually in prayer. If we are not being led into that specific reality then we are merely becoming self absorbed and distracted.
Luckily at the Oratory the sheer brilliance of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is preserved through traditional signs and gestures: the Priest moves to the Altar and no longer faces the people. Bells are rung at highly significant points in the Canon to remind us of the importance of the presence of the Holy Spirit sanctifying and transforming the gifts of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. But this turning towards the Lord in the second part of the Mass draws the division ever more distinctly for me of how we are no longer addressing God in the first part of the Mass, but celebrating ourselves. Most Catholic Churches run with this symbolism so far that all reverence and solemnity is forgotten, and a community becomes closed in on itself. Circular church buildings spring to mind.This post is not intended to criticise. I use the example of the Oratory's High Mass on Sunday because it clearly lends aspects of the older Liturgy to itself, and attempts to create continuity between the two uses of the Roman Rite. But distinctions remain very clear, and these can be summed up as a dumbing down of the Liturgy in the new missal, to make it more 'people friendly'. I will close with some words from Pope Paul VI, spoken when the new missal of 1970 was released:
This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made?For me, the newer use of the Roman Rite has certainly fostered within me an appreciation of the huge diversity and variation in the way the Mass is said. In many ways I'm sure it has made things more comprehensible and approachable. But for me all this was simply preparation for the infinite treasures which can be found in the Church's Traditional Liturgy, the Mass which it is now possible to call Present and Extraordinary!.....In the new rite you will find the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, strictly so called, brought out more clearly, as if the latter were the practical response to the former. You will find how much the assembly of the faithful is called upon to participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and how in the Mass they are and fully feel themselves "the Church." You will also see other marvellous features of our Mass. But do not think that these things are aimed at altering its genuine and traditional essence.
Rather try to see how the Church desires to give greater efficacy to her liturgical message through this new and more expansive liturgical language; how she wishes to bring home the message to each of her faithful, and to the whole body of the People of God, in a more direct and pastoral way.
Too intellectual for me Matt! But i like the picture!
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteAs always you write passionately about the liturgy and provide beautiful photographs, but several of your comments are mistaken.
Ambones were a prominent feature of many early churches. There are several examples in Rome, such as San Clemente, where the marble sanctuary furniture is said to date from the seventh century. There were separate ambones for the different readings, ie prophecies, epistles & Gospel, and perhaps it is a loss to have all the readings proclaimed from the same place, but having the subdeacon hold the book is not a more ancient custom.
You imply that having the Celebrant remain at the sedilia for the prayers & readings, and seated for imposition of incense is an innovation. In fact, this was/is the norm at the EF when Mass is celebrated by a bishop at the faldstool or throne. The same attention is paid to the altar during the liturgy of the word in the ordinary form as in a pontifical mass in the EF.
To claim that the the celebrant is somehow "not involved" in the scriptures is puzzling; the celebrant sits or stands while listening attentively. The epistle is ordinarily read by the subdeacon & the Gospel by the deacon; these are their specific roles. What else could the priest (or the congregation) do but listen? Do you really mean to imply that listening quietly is not "active participation"?
You make an issue of having a "lay reader" for the first reading. In EF masses with prophecies or other scriptural lessons these are read or chanted by a cleric, or if none is available, by a layman vested in clerical dress ie cassock & cotta. Once again the current use at the Oratory is identical with the practice in the EF.
Your attitude seems to be based on the assumption that the "old" & "new" masses are quite separate rites; this has been a popular theme in some circles, but it has been squashed by Summorum Pontificem. There is one Roman Rite with two forms, the ordinary & the extraordinary. It is thus no surprise that the Oratory's High Mass "lends aspects of the older liturgy to itself". The wonder should be that the same is not done elsewhere. It is not necessary to "attempt to create continuity", because that continuity already exists. The features you value are not those of the "old rite", but rather of the Roman Rite, and the newer form is just as much part of that Rite as the older.
Finally, you say that you do not intend to criticise, but then claim that the Oratory High Mass is "dumbed down". These two statements could only be reconciled if you held the view that dumbing down is beneficial. The real distinction is that the ordinary form has been revised in accordance with the decrees of the second Vatican council.
You are perfectly entitled to have a preference for the EF, but indulging in this tirade against every feature of the liturgy which you imagine to have changed is divisive & quite contrary to Benedict XVI's intentions.
Thanks Frank, its always good to be put in one's place!
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting to notice the differences between the two high masses at the Oratory. Presumably the differences that are there are for the benefit of the Faithful by the will of the Council Fathers.
My point about the celebrants involvement with the Altar during the liturgy of the Word is more pronounced before the Epistle; for the confiteor, kyrie and gloria. I would have been better to concentrate on these aspects because these are my favourite unique features of the older use; especially the way the Kyrie is sung over the incensing of the Altar, and the 'action' doesn't need to stop for the choir's performance!
The dumbing down of the Liturgy is not by the orchestration of the Oratory, it is the 'liturgical experts' who are responsible. The Oratory, to my mind, makes the best of an inferior missal, and does so exactly as the council requires. The result is a Mass which is simpler, clearer, less repetitive and easier for the Faithful to follow and participate in.
Despite this I have grown to love the older use of the Roman Rite, which is certainly desperately required in the Church to highlight the discontinuities (not at the Oratory I hasten to add) which are so prevalent, and in need of re-reform! This is slowly being done, and in every papal exposition on the Eucharist there is an attempt at removing inconsistencies and abuses.
The assertion that both the Novus Ordo and the traditional mass are both forms of the same rite, is one that boggles me. No Pope has the power to change reality, however much he seeks to re-label it, and the physical/historical/liturgical reality is that Missal of Paul VI is not the Roman rite but a "fabrication" (the then Cardinal Ratzinger's own words).
ReplyDeleteThis article expresses what I believe is an unfortunate pitfall in the motu proprio.
While on a pilgrimage to Rome a few years ago, the priest was so unconfortable saying Mass, ad orientem, that he sort of stood sideways at all the traditional altars that we used. It looked so stupid. Indeed, very "north end" as the heretic Cranmer would have his priests stand.
ReplyDeleteI was at a Mass in St Clare's basilica in Assisi (the altar was attached to the wall) where the priest turned round and recited the words of consecration facing the people.
ReplyDeleteandrew i'm not going to read your suggestion..but are you sure the Pope made a 'pitfall?'
ReplyDeleteOh i couldn't resist i had a peep! What a very strange blog..couldn't relate to it in any form!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your gracious response to my criticism of your original post. Perhaps I should make clear that I love the "extraordinary form" too. The point I am trying to make is that there are many varients even within the Roman Rite as strictly defined, let alone amongst the particular uses related to it. Many details have changed during its long history. You have every right to prefer the older form, but the features you value are not unique to it. The examples you cite serve perfectly to illustrate this.
ReplyDeleteUsually at an EF High Mass the altar is incensed while the Kyrie is sung by the choir; I agree it's beautiful. But what will happen in November if you find yourself at a solemn requiem mass? The altar will not be incensed during the Kyrie, as this first incensation is omitted. There will also be several other variations; perhaps most relevant to our particular discussion is the omission of the use of the humeral veil by the subdeacon. At the consecration, he will kneel on the bottom altar step & incense the Blessed sacrament (exactly as we do in the ordinary rite). Will you react by saying that the EF requiem mass is "dumbed down"?
Suppose Vincent Nichols agrees to celebrate an EF pontifical mass (I suspect this is likely to happen). After incensing the altar he will go to his throne. The Introit & Kyrie will be said from there, he will intone the Gloria & read the collect from there, the incense & the deacon will be blessed at the throne, he will not return to the altar until the offertory. Are you really sure that you will come away complaining that this has detracted from your appreciation of the mass?
The case of the confiteor is also interesting. It was not really part of the mass at all until 1969. The mass begins at the introit; in the EF the confiteor preceeds the introit as it's a personal devotion of the clergy. It is a relatively late interpolation, dating from the eleventh century. The wording is variable. For example, the text in the Carmelite missal (I happen to have one) omits the usual saints' names & has Our Lady & Elijah.
Incidentally, there are dozens of other differences from the older mass we are more familiar with, both in the texts of prayers & actions. The Carmelite Rite also omits the use of the humeral veil at High Mass (perhaps you can see a pattern emerging here). At High Mass the chalice is prepared before the Gospel, but at private low masses this is done before the beginning of mass, immediately after Judica me. I believe the Dominican Rite was similar, but I don't have a missal to compare.
I reiterate my view that there is a constellation of authentic practice within approved forms of the historical Roman rite, and that some of these have come in and out of use at various times and places. Most of them would have started as innovations.
I agree that comparison of the older & newer masses is interesting, and I've tried to give some background in the areas I know about. I would not argue that every change made between 1962 & 1969 is an improvement (there are few who would), but they're not all bad either. Please don't paint yourself into a corner.
Philip,
ReplyDeletethis doesn't only happen with ad orientem altars. I was once visiting San Gregorio in Velabro (Cardinal Newman's titular church) which has an authentic altar "facing the people". A German speaking bishop was celebrating mass, not at the altar, but at a little wooden table on the floor of the nave in front of it. I suppose he wanted to be "close to the people", but the real altar is up a flight of steps, surmounted by a marble canopy.
It's richly ironic that the practice of celebrating facing the people was originally justified by the existence of ancient altars such as this, but that now these same altars are considered unsuitable.
Frank, I have been recommended this article, which is pertinent to your point about the pontifical high mass. Your argument seems to assume that what was done at a pontifical mass should now be performed by any priest. This opens up very interesting lines of argument.
ReplyDeleteI am eager to participate in a pontifical high mass. The closest I've got is this. Lets hope you're right about Vince, who I bumped into outside St Mary's Hospice the other day. I got his autograph on a copy of the Dream of Gerontius, which he has written a foreward to!
Like Jackie I find a lot of this too intelectual for me but that does not mean I will be silent. The only question for a lay person is how close did this Mass bring me to God? My honest experience is that too many Masses do not take me where I want to be. The abuse of the Latin Mass, yes, there were abuses like the priest rushing through a ten minute Mass before breakfast and he might as well have been reading Pakistani. This is what Vatican II should have tackled. And the readings in English could hae easily been contained in a Tridentine Mass. But the wrong people were put in charge and the wrong reforms were made. Matt, is quite correct when he talks about the over emphasis of the LIturgy of the Word because that is what I experience. The Scriptures are held up high on the way to the altar, every Tom, Dick and Harriet are invited to read them. We then have sermons which seldom refer to the Table of the Eucharist and indeed this part of the Mass goes so fast that it is almost an anti-climax despite as Matt says it is the reason for us being there. When schools come along it gets even worse with three or four children reading the same text. Let the intelectuals argue about Ambones and other great things, just give me back a catholic Mass.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI think you're the first person to describe me as an "intellectual"!
I agree that many masses are dreadful, & I am not seeking to defend them, but the liturgy of the word is an essential part of any valid mass. In the older rite, where these things were more closely defined, attendance at a mass only counted as fulfilling the obligation if one was present from the gospel to the priest's communion. The liturgy of the word & the liturgy of the eucharist are not in competition with each other, they are constituent parts of the same mass.
The good news is that Benedict XVI has set in train a process which will deal with the sort of nonsense you have to put up with.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to this very interesting article. I've been wondering who recommended it; was it Fr AW by any chance?
I suspect the author is a monk at Fontgombault, which is the monastery I described to you the other Sunday. His arguments about the difference between mass celebrated by a bishop & a priest are fascinating. If he's correct (he is obviously very erudite, but I'm not entirely convinced) the current practice in the ordinary form is a mistake. In my earlier comment I did not take a position on whether or not the use of a chair by the priest celebrant was a good thing, I merely pointed out that the use of a chair has parallels in the older form & so is not an exclusive feature of the newer form. The position I do take is of a "reform of the reform", and if after a proper debate, the competent authority of the church decides to change liturgical practice, I am not going to join a movement for the preservation of 1970s liturgy. This process of reassessment of the liturgical changes is exactly what Summorum Pontificem will enable, which is why it's such good news.
I sympathise with your wish to attend a pontifical high mass. His Grace the Archbishop (you can't be a real traddie if you call him Vince, Dr Doyle) celebrated a pontifical high mass in the ordinary form at the Oratory a couple of years ago. He seemed entirely at home, & carried it off extremely well (no turning away from the altar at the consecration!!), which is one reason why I think he'll celebrate in the EF as well. But he'll wait until he read up his Fortescue & can do everything perfectly.
It's amazing that all this is happening so quickly. I've always assumed that the worst aspects of modern liturgy would start to vanish in my lifetime, but I never expected to see this whirlwind.
Why would imposition of incense be done at the sedilia by a regular priest? This is only the privilege of a Bishop or other prelates. If a simple priest does this, it is an abuse... in the old and the new order of the Mass.
ReplyDeleteTwo rites: The Liturgy was not revised by Vatican II. The changes came later ... the Council had been closed for years.
This Pope, when he was Cardinal, and many other Cardinals then did complain about the N.O. They do not look (or feel) like the same rite. Of course, the Pope, now as Pope, will not come out and say "they are not too rites" because it would be a great scandal!
Just think: When the N.O. was said for the first time in the Vatican in the presence of Cardinals and the Pope, there were complains and it was rejected or many changes were required. Card. Ottaviani, the Head of the **Holy Office,** complained and indirectly rejected it. He wrote "The Ottaviani Intervention" because the N.O. (in Latin) had theological difficulties or problems that were not solved or improved later before it became official. Theologically, it leaned towards Protestant theology...
The way the N.O. is done at the Oratory obscures the whole thing.
My thinking is: Do the N.O. according to the rubrics meant for it and do the traditional Mass according to the Rubrics that were meant for it. ONLY THEN will we see the real differences (external and intrinsic) between the two Orders of the Mass... even if the N.O. is done facing the Altar and in Latin.
The other variant uses that Frank talks about -- Most of these were lawful and completely acceptable variations of the Roman Rite. The N.O. though, in this case, would seem to be nothing better (I'm talking about the rites and ceremonies) than a mix and match... and this is absolutely contrary to the way the Liturgy works. For that matter, a future Pope could do the same and take parts from the Ambrosian Rite, the Morazabic Rite, etc.. in greater proportions and come up with a new variation of the "Roman" Rite...
Particulars of a Requiem - Frank... the omissions at Requiem Masses had a meaning in the traditional Mass. Are we supposed to assume then that in the N.O. all Masses are Requiem Masses? Or have the "spirit" of a Requiem?
John Kearny - The whole **MYTH** about the Old Mass being said in 10 mins. has become an absurd complaint. This cannot be possible at all. And Mass could be said in 30 minutes in the past since sometimes the Creed was not said, no sermon was required on certain days, some readings were very short, there was no music, a few people for Communion. Now I'm not saying that there were no abuses in this category, but people do tend to exaggerate it as if this only happened because the Mass was the Old Mass.
Have you ever been to a N.O. Mass where the Mass is only 20 minutes, especially if it is in the morning? This did not go away with Vat. II.
Frank - the reason why in the Old Mass the obligation only applied to the second part of the Mass was because in early Christianity Mass was that. The readings before were considered "preparations" for the Mass (sort of like the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar). In fact, non-Catholics (pagans, heretics, catechumens) were invited only to the first part (the readings) and then they were asked to leave.
Also, the Old Mass and the New Mass cannot possibly be considered to have equal dignity. True, the Pope has to say that because otherwise he would be denying Vatican II and a lot of the things he supported ardently in the '60's, but a Rite that has existed for at least 1500 years cannot be compared with one that only has existed for 50 years. This would be ridiculous... even it if is official.
Latin Mass,
ReplyDeletemost of the remarks I have made here have been comments on Matt's original post. If you read that post, and then read my comments, you will see that most of your criticisms are peripheral to the particular issues we have been discussing.
You are conflating two separate issues when you write about the relationship between the two parts of the Mass & the definition of attendance by a layman. The mass of the catechumens ends with the Credo, and the mass of the faithful begins with the offertory. In contrast, the minimum attendance (in the EF) to fulfill the obligation to attend mass on prescribed days extends from the beginning of the gospel until after the priest's communion, including a portion of each of the two parts of the mass. As far as I am aware, the reason for the latter rule was/is that these parts of the mass, including the gospel, are essential to the validity of the mass.
Your comparison of the scriptural readings with the prayers at the foot of the altar is bizarre. The prayers, however beautiful, are not an essential constituent of the mass, but are a late accretion. There is, of course, nothing wrong with accretions per se (I for one am personally very fond of many mediaeval & baroque accretions) but equating them with the central core of the mass which dates from apostolic times lacks a sense of proportion.
As you say, Cardinal Ratzinger was associated with several scholarly works advancing the view that the "new mass" is a "modern" rite, distinct from the Roman rite. At that time it would have been reasonable to assume that he agreed with that view, but he was elected pope nonetheless, so I don't see why saying so openly would have caused a scandal. In fact liturgical liberals hold that same position. If his holiness had felt uncomfortable making a statement either way, he could easily have liberalised the availability of the "old" mass without commenting on its precise relationship with the "new". The fact is that, in full knowledge & understanding of the terms and content of the debate, he chose to make a very definitive statement. This is clearly not an act of cowardice or compromise, but of his conviction, and when the Sovereign Pontiff makes such a statement it cannot be set aside as "ridiculous" simply because you do not agree with it.
I don't understand why you seem to be so angry. The pope has removed the restrictions on the EF, and it will increasingly become available to those who wish to attend. If the older form is really so much better than the newer it will slowly become the preponderant form of mass. I don't think that will be the outcome; I am expecting a considered reform of the older use in line with what sacrosanctum concilium. Time will tell what happens, but the outcome is almost certain to be better liturgy than most places have now. Why is there a need for so many bitter words?
Frank, a lot of what you write seems to be comparing ordinary form apples with extraordinary form oranges, switching between high and pontifical, requiem and non-requiem, instead of like for like. The Oratory fathers do each missal very well but the great structural difference is as obvious as the nose on your face. Like for like, even with maximum ad orientem the ordinary form is very ad populum.
ReplyDeleteFrank
ReplyDeleteI don't see any bitterness in LM1983's post. It's quite hard to assume someone's reaction in just a blog post.
Some of the points he raises are worthwhile. While the High Masses at both the London and Birmingham Oratory are good, there is some misnomers to them - like the long periods of inactivity eg) waiting for the Sanctus to finish before begining the canon. (Some more traditionally minded priests at the London Oratory, during the 70s, used to mutter the canon in low voice while the sanctus was going on and wait till the Hanc Igitur but were prohibited by the Cardinal for being "Tridentenist" but I digress). The point is the ceremonies of a High Mass in the old rite are such that they correspond with the music and the over-all fluidity of the mass.
LM 1983 also rightlly points out that the abuse of "mass in 23 minutes" in the 1950s is exaggerated a bit. Even if it were true, this can hardly be compared to the way the new rite is celebrated nowadays in alot of parishes in England & Wales, let alone the world!
I can also sympathise with assertion that it does seem to contradict reality that both rites are equal in expression and dignity. A reading of the memoirs of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini will prove to anyone (liberal, traditional or "reform of the reform" type) that the new rite is a massive depature from tradition. Any talk of the new rite "enriching" the older rite is a bit of a sinking ship - because anything that is good in the new rite precisely derives from the old IMHO.
While I don't think LM 1983 or any supporter of the traditional rite meant to say that the old rite will flourish in no time, it is certain that Novus Ordo as we know it, will not be the mass people flock to in 50 years time.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteI think (but I am not certain) that in the traditional Mass, in order to fulfill the Sunday obligraion the faithful was only required to be present from the Offertory to the Celebrant's Communion... the Gospel was not included.
It was in the N.O. that the obligation began from the reading of the Gospel to give the Scripute more emphasis since that was one of the elements over-emphasized by reformers -- more Scripture and fewer rites/ceremonies and prayers not in Scripture.
The whole point of comparing the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the Scriptural readings is this: At one point, they were both exercises of preparation for the Sacrificial part of the Mass.
Which is somewhat related to the whole idea of the Liturgy being "dumbed down." From your comment, it sounds as if it really does not matter whether the prayers at the foot of the altar are not said or there is no incensation because it was so when there was a Requiem Mass and during some days of Holy Week.
I said that these omissions have a meaning and it is not to "dumb down" the Liturgy (during a Requiem Mass). So, it is true that the N.O. is valid without these additions and it is a Mass just as any other with these prayers, but in the N.O. these omissions have no real meaning - so in a way it is a sort of "dumbing down" the Liturgy (in the N.O.).
Omissions, accretions, etc. should always have a meaning... and all the omissions at a Requiem Mass had a reason attached to them. Can you provide a reason for the fact that the N.O. does not have them?
Whatever the Pope wrote in the Motu Proprio is not dogmatic. Just because in it he says that the two rites are the same, it does not mean that it is true. Sure, he might believe that now, but it does not mean it is true. A Motu Proprio is not a dogmatic decree... it is something the Pope wishes to do or wishes others to do. In the future he could write another Motu Proprio doing/saying the opposite of the present Motu Proprio and it would be just fine, too.
People are taking the Motu Proprio as something that is chiselled in stones to the point of thinking that the traditional Mass has a new name: Extraordinary Form. This does not make sense. Something similar happened with Extraordinary Ministers... and names of some dicasteries in the 60's and 70's.
Usually, there is a reason behind the changing of a name. In my opinion, the Pope was not trying to give the traditional Mass a new name. But when Catholics do things like this (especially the younger ones), it just obscures the Office of the Papacy to the point of making the Pope similar to a pop icon. This is a shame.