The Latin Mass was a tissue of Scripture reading, from beginning to end, with its dramatic climax in Communion. It was divided into two parts: the Mass of Catacumens and the Mass of the Faithful, the old OCC. The first part was an instruction in the holy mysteries’ the second participation. The new form has had the unfortunately effect of deemphasizing the mystery simply because formally the separation between the two is so apparent. The integrity of the two parts of the Old mass was especially obvious when said without a homily.
The new mass, unfortunately, seems chopped up into many parts. This is not helped by the usual music which seems to have no relationship to the actions
of the priest and just fills in the gaps when nothing is being said.
“The Latin Mass was a tissue of Scripture reading, from beginning to end, with its dramatic climax in Communion. It was divided into two parts: the Mass of Catacumens and the Mass of the Faithful, the old OCC. The first part was an instruction in the holy mysteries’ the second participation.”
As the Divine Liturgies of Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy are to this day. The distinctions made in this article ring hollow to Orthodox ears; the question wouldn’t come up in Orthodoxy. Sometimes I think the West, in the past 40 years or so, set aside our shared Ignatian Eucharistic theology and forgot that we are, very findamentally, a liturgical people, gathered together with our bishops at the Liturgy and focused on Christ in the Eucharist.
You should put "music" in quotes.