Communion in the Hand?

[paperwight]

average joe or jane walking up to the altar, hands out, chomping on our Lord, and half the time, NOT EVEN crossing oneself afterwards.

And where is it laid down that crossing oneself afterwards is a compulsory part of receiving Holy Communion?

I have yet to see any clergy do it.

Indeed, some have argued that crossing oneself is making out that receiving Our Blessed Lord is somehow incomplete without doing so, which is nonsense. What could be a greater blessing than receiving Our Lord? How can crossing oneself possibly add anything?

I can see that some see it as beneficial for them, but it is NOT compulsory, and we should not criticise others for not doing so.

 

[Cat]

To: Cat.

Yes, a little infirm. It’s up to you. If you’re crippled, then no one can reasonably expect you to kneel. If you can manage it at all, then why not?

*“If to suffer for Christ’s sake is glorious” *

If? It most certainly is. Read, for example, about the life of St. Padre Pio. He wanted to suffer, and this was given to him as a boon. It was a privilege. He wasn’t required to do it. Nor are we.

You can offer your suffering to Christ to shorten the stay of the Holy Souls in purgatory, for example. Or to help convert sinners. Hence the phrase “offering it up”. Catholicism 101.

“… perhaps all who are offended at Communion in the hand should thank God for the opportunity to suffer for His glory.”

A smart remark. Thank God for what one perceives as others impiety? That would be perverse, unChristian, if not blasphemous.

To: keyboardrob. Please read previous posts. This argument has already been covered.

In my opinion, speculation about what Christ and the apostles did or did not do at the Last Supper misses the point.

1. We don’t know for certain all the details.
2. As a previous poster has mentioned, the Last Supper happened before the cruxificion; our rite is also a re-enactment of that.
3. The apostles were his most intimate human companions; I don’t think we’re on the same level.
4. What you do outwardly affects your inner condition e.g. Put a uniform on a meek man and it helps him become a soldier. Kneel and receive on the tongue and it helps your humility and shows respect to our King (“Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”)
5. Liturgical archaelogy of practices dropped hundreds of years ago repudiates our past. I think it wastes time. It says: We know better than our forebears. let’s try this …!

Hence now the increased opportunity for the impious, the ignorant and the outright Satanic to palm the host and mess about with it.

Plus the disrespect handling the Host must increase; if I can touch it, how special is it?

My previous question remains unanswered:

If you have the option to receive Communion is a very humble way: kneeling, on the tongue, why would you persist, even insist, on taking it standing, in the hand? (infirmities aside).

Answer to the last question–because Holy Mother Church has given us the option. Who are you to oppose Holy Mother Church?

 

[savienu]

And where is it laid down that crossing oneself afterwards is a compulsory part of receiving Holy Communion?

I have yet to see any clergy do it.

Indeed, some have argued that crossing oneself is making out that receiving Our Blessed Lord is somehow incomplete without doing so, which is nonsense. What could be a greater blessing than receiving Our Lord? How can crossing oneself possibly add anything?

I can see that some see it as beneficial for them, but it is NOT compulsory, and we should not criticise others for not doing so.

Since when is it NOT compulsory? That’s standard form!

 

[Layman]

To: Cat :

Sure I can. Because it’s optional. I say it’s bad, and I’ve stated why. You have the option. Why choose the prima-facie less humble one?

Also I understand, from some posts on this forum, it was allowed after some clergy started doing it off their own bat. It did not originate in Rome.

 

[gospel_life]

To: keyboardrob. Please read previous posts. This argument has already been covered.

So your opinion, which differs from the Church’s, has been expressed and you have rejected any other opinion as being unworthy. So therefore the point is settled and discussion is closed and his opinion is automatically wrong?

My previous question remains unanswered:

If you have the option to receive Communion is a very humble way: kneeling, on the tongue, why would you persist, even insist, on taking it standing, in the hand? (infirmities aside).

Again, humility is nothing more than a matter of opinion from anyone’s position than the communicant’s. More humble in WHOSE opinion.

This gets into the whole question of externals and your contention that how you look is who you are. “Dress a man up…” That’s a nice little rule of thumb but totally inadequate to the question and incredibly arrogant to make any such assumptions. Based on this the homeless guy in the back of the church just ain’t good enough and St. Francis in his beggars robes just couldn’t possibly be humble enough.

I’ll tell you straight out that whether I receive on my knees on the tongue or standing, in the hand, that my disposition doesn’t vary one iota. The fact that you see one as being more humble does not in any way translate to being objective truth. How I receive, or how I’m dressed, might affect *your opinion *of my disposition but it doesn’t give you any ability to make any judgment whatsoever as to what MY disposition really is.

savienu:

Since when is it NOT compulsory? That’s standard form!

It absolutely is not compulsory in any way. The fact that most of us do it doesn’t make it compulsory. If it was it would show up in the rubrics.

 

[Layman]

“So your opinion, which differs from the Church’s, has been expressed and you have rejected any other opinion as being unworthy. So therefore the point is settled and discussion is closed and his opinion is automatically wrong?”

Nope. Just trying to save time.

“That’s a nice little rule of thumb but totally inadequate to the question and incredibly arrogant to make any such assumptions.”

How is that arrogant? And that sounds like argumentum ad hominem.

If you work in an office, try this: dress in your home clothes and go to work. See whether it doesn’t affect your mood. Or the attitudes of co-workers to you. Even just leave the tie at home. Or wear a rumpled shirt or blouse. Any change?

“Based on this the homeless guy in the back of the church just ain’t good enough and St. Francis in his beggars robes just couldn’t possibly be humble enough.”

Nonsense. Both are/were doing the best they can/could.

If externals don’t matter, why kneel at any point in the Mass? Answer: One does these things to get graces and show respect, internally and externally, to the Lord.

To put a contrary, exaggerated image:

You could, if you dress as a clown and go up to receive communion standing on one leg, make the argument that how you feel is what’s important.

But I wonder what message you’d be sending to your subconscious (your heart)? Or to Christ? Or other members of the congregation? Or to a possible convert, hanging at the back, hoping for Glory and finding …?

My emphases: "I’ll tell you straight out that whether I receive on my knees on the tongue or standing, in the hand, that my disposition doesn’t vary one iota. The fact that you see one as being more humble does not in any way translate to being objective truth. How I receive, or how I’m dressed, might affect your opinion of my disposition but it doesn’t give you any ability to make any judgment whatsoever as to what My disposition really is."

You’ve sparked a thought in my mind.

**What you do externally will affect people who see you. ** After all, mass is a Communal affair. If everyone’s casual and fidgety, then casual and fidgety becomes the norm. If most people are outwardly pious, formally-dressed and still, then you feel compelled to be so too.

Happened to me recently. The men at the Latin Masses I attend put on a tie and jacket. It’s noticeably a norm. Casual ol’ me felt compelled to do so too. And by gum, I felt the better for it.

Also interesting was the internal resistance to it: “Putting on a tie is too much trouble, look, you’re leaving it a bit late for Mass, your ordinary clothes are much more comfortable …”

In my opinion, Christ doesn’t need us. We need Him. Ingratiate yourself with the King today! Go the extra mile!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How many churches have intinction on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail?

I think that is the best way to receive because there is the least amount of possible problems and one reverently receives like a little child the Lord from the priest and receives both species though certainly one doesn’t have to receive both species.

Is intinction on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail a good idea?

 

[gospel_life]

If you work in an office, try this: dress in your home clothes and go to work. See whether it doesn’t affect your mood. Or the attitudes of co-workers to you. Even just leave the tie at home. Or wear a rumpled shirt or blouse. Any change?

Nope, makes no difference to my mood or disposition or my ability to get the job done at all. Whether it affects my co-worker’s attitudes is irrelevant but the whole point I’m making. These externals may make a difference to THEM, from which they may make judgments or assumptions, but it doesn’t affect my diposition whatsoever.

You’ve sparked a thought in my mind.

**What you do externally will affect people who see you. ** After all, mass is a Communal affair. If everyone’s casual and fidgety, then casual and fidgety becomes the norm. If most people are outwardly pious, formally-dressed and still, then you feel compelled to be so too.

Happened to me recently. The men at the Latin Masses I attend put on a tie and jacket. It’s noticeably a norm. Casual ol’ me felt compelled to do so too. And by gum, I felt the better for it.

And here you just further prove the point. It appears that it’s all about externals and doing what you THINK you should do based on what you perceive others will think about you. Hardly a disposition of humility. Instead of worrying about what others are wearing or how they receive communion, I do my best to focus on my prayers and the awesome God before me.

“Based on this the homeless guy in the back of the church just ain’t good enough and St. Francis in his beggars robes just couldn’t possibly be humble enough.”

Nonsense. Both are/were doing the best they can/could.

Nonsense. St. Francis CHOSE this life when he was quite well to do and found that his humility was in fact hindered by such outward displays. And whether the homeless guy is doing the best he can is irrelevant under your scenario. As you’ve explained it he should feel unworthy because he isn’t dressed in the suit and tie like everyone else.

If externals don’t matter, why kneel at any point in the Mass? Answer: One does these things to get graces and show respect, internally and externally, to the Lord.

Because the rubrics call for it. The attitude of respect, reverence, and humility is internal and is there or not there regardless of what posture I am assuming at any point in the Mass. By your argument, why do we not kneel through the entire Mass? Are you being disrespectful the rest of the time?

And by the way, no, we don’t do these things to “get graces”. We can’t earn grace.

To put a contrary, exaggerated image:

You could, if you dress as a clown and go up to receive communion standing on one leg, make the argument that how you feel is what’s important.

Simply a red herring. We are addressing whether one’s internal disposition is less humble in receiving in a way approved by the Church. I daresay that one could more humbly receive in a clown suit than going up dressed in a coat and tie, totally oblivious to what is occurring, and kneeling to receive so everyone could see how pious you are.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in any way advocating not dressing appropriately for Mass or saying that “anything goes”. One does get tired though of this belief that kneeling, on the tongue, in a suit is somehow objectively more important, or implies a greater humility, that one receiving in the hand.

“Do not rend your clothes; rend your heart instead.” One would think that during Lent especially that we might be giving some thought to such things.

 

[keyboardrob]

Prior to making this post I’ve taken about 90 minutes to read quite far back in this thread. It’s been interesting and enlightening. I’ve read some replies un-Catholic/Christian in tone as well as posts that show untold depth of compassion. There are thoughtful, scholarly posts. Then there are the majority of posts written by people who are simply concerned about how best to find reverence and proper spiritual preparation for receiving our Lord in the Eucharist- be it on the tongue or in the hand, kneeling or standing, dressed in Sunday best or in casual attire.

I’ve concluded the whole discussion is, in some ways, petty and unworthy of the Eucharistic Lord we all receive at Mass. Are there people who disrespect the Eucharist when recieving in the hand? Yes. I’ve seen it happen. i’ve also seen people approach the Eucharistic Lord and receive while kneeling to receive on the tongue whom I know were in no shape spiritually to receive Communion without taking advantage of the graces offered in the Sacrament of Penance prior to receiving Holy Communion. I’ll be the first to admit I have fit in the latter category more than a few times. I’ll pay for that sin and I know it. Being a parish organist in a large church gives me a unique way in observing how folks approach the altar for the Eucharist. I don’t judge, I merely observe.

In my home church, which i don’t get to attend because of distance considerations and my job as parish organist for a Roman Rite church- the same thing happens. I think this thread has run it’s course and it’s time to move on to other, more pressing ecclesiastical concerns as subjects for discussion. Give this some thought.

 

[Layman]

“Nope, makes no difference to my mood or disposition or my ability to get the job done at all. Whether it affects my co-worker’s attitudes is irrelevant but the whole point I’m making. These externals may make a difference to THEM, from which they may make judgments or assumptions, but it doesn’t affect my diposition whatsoever.”

That is remarkable. It really doesn’t affect you how you dress for work? I’m not being rude, but are you a car mechanic or a trucker? Or the boss of your business?

“… Hardly a disposition of humility.”

That one is a disposition of respect. My putting on more formal clothes, I mean.

“Instead of worrying about what others are wearing or how they receive communion, I do my best to focus on my prayers and the awesome God before me.”

I worry for their sake. I’m sorted out for TLMs where I am at the moment.

It’s also distracting, when at N.O. Mases, to see bare female flesh or women in tight-fitting clothes in front of me. I try to block it out. I’m lucky I can go to TLMs in the UK. After being to those, and singing in a schola, the N.O’s I’ve attended look … dumbed down, by comparison.

“St. Francis CHOSE this life when he was quite well to do and found that his humility was in fact hindered by such outward displays. And whether the homeless guy is doing the best he can is irrelevant under your scenario. As you’ve explained it he should feel unworthy because he isn’t dressed in the suit and tie like everyone else.”

They both do the best according to their station. They’re not really pertinent to this argument. Most Church-goers I would guess are neither homeless nor saintly mendicants(?). If you have nice, formal clothes, why not wear them to Mass? You’re in the temple of a King.

If you went to see the Queen of England at a formal occasion, would you really dress casually?

“I daresay that one could more humbly receive in a clown suit than going up dressed in a coat and tie, totally oblivious to what is occurring,”

This I think is the nub of the matter.

I say externals matter, that they affect you, you say, no, and that if it affects the people around you (co-workers, fellow Mass-goers) it’s irrelevant. Is that correct? If so, if that’s what you truly think, then that’s it. The debate’s over.

 

[PJM]

Re: **Communion in the Hand? **

---

Originally Posted by LilyM
Well, genuflecting in front of the Tabernacle has ALWAYS been optional, yet it’s also an important sign of reverence

Reply to above
Since when has genuflecting in front of the tabernacle been OPTIONAL? Even in my poor excuse for catholic schooling, we were told we MUST do that.

**
The truth of the matter…**

From the Feneral Instruction of the Roman Missal…

Curent, valid, licit and binding on all (thay chose obedience over current errant practice:shrug:

**"Genuflections and Bows

1. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. above, nos. 210-251).

If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.

Otherwise all who pass before the Most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are moving in procession.

Ministers carrying the processional cross or candles bow their heads instead of genuflecting.
**

Love and prayers,

 

[gospel_life]

That is remarkable. It really doesn’t affect you how you dress for work? I’m not being rude, but are you a car mechanic or a trucker? Or the boss of your business?

Upper management.

If there is a dress code, one follows the dress code. If there isn’t a dress code, one dresses appropriately. I’m not talking about wearing a bathing suit and flip flops to work, nor am I talking about wearing shorts and a tee shirt to Mass. There are days I wear jeans to work. There are days I wear a tie. I really don’t let it bother me one way or another if others are forming judgments about that. Nor does it affect how I feel or how I work.

I worry for their sake. I’m sorted out for TLMs where I am at the moment.

Worried for “their” sake in what way? That “they” aren’t outwardly reverent enough for your taste? That you feel they lack humility? Who is it you’re worrying about and why? I’m not being flippant in that question; I’m really curious who “they” are.

Let me ask you a straight out question. Are you telling me that you are going to judge me to be less respectful and/or less humble for receiving communion in the hand? But then if a “pro choice” supporter comes in behind me in a coat and tie but kneels and receives on the tongue that you will find them acceptable, not knowing about their belief system?

It’s also distracting, when at N.O. Mases, to see bare female flesh or women in tight-fitting clothes in front of me. I try to block it out. I’m lucky I can go to TLMs in the UK. After being to those, and singing in a schola, the N.O’s I’ve attended look … dumbed down, by comparison.

I don’t disagree that overexposed women can be a distraction, no matter how hard one tries to block them out. And I guess you’re entitled to your opinion about OF Masses, it being possible that maybe the ones you’ve been exposed to might really be that bad. I know I attended some absolutely horrible TLM’s growing up.

If you went to see the Queen of England at a formal occasion, would you really dress casually?

I guess it would depend on the occasion. If I was on a tour and ran into the opportunity I wouldn’t run off to change clothes, or refuse the opportunity for want of feeling inadequately dressed. If I was invited to a formal dinner I would certainly dress appropriately.

We are always and at all times in God’s presence. I dress appropriately for Mass as I do in any other prayer time, which could be anywhere at any time. I’m trying to remember which of the saints it was that commented (very paraphrased) that if God showed up while he was plowing he would keep plowing because that’s what he was supposed to be doing. I don’t know that I would go quite that far but everything in scripture, especially during this lenten period, makes it clear that it is the rending of our hearts that God wants, as shown by how we treat His people.

This I think is the nub of the matter.

I say externals matter, that they affect you, you say, no, and that if it affects the people around you (co-workers, fellow Mass-goers) it’s irrelevant. Is that correct? If so, if that’s what you truly think, then that’s it. The debate’s over.

Externals affect different people in different ways. Of course they matter to us, but the danger is in projecting our personal preferences in externals on to someone else as universal objective truth and then making judgments about others piety or humility based on that.

Where some want a church adorned with gold and fancy statuary I prefer the simplicity of a Franciscan church. Where some prefer Latin, I prefer praying in my own language. Some prefer confessionals, I prefer face-to-face. I enjoy Chant but don’t need it all the time and am not bothered if it isn’t there. Externals are just externals; they ultimately don’t affect my worship and I certainly am not going to consider myself better over my preferences, nor am I going to consider them deficient. If I am on the road and walk into Sunday Mass by accident only to find that I am at a TLM and everyone is wearing ties, it isn’t going to concern me a bit. I’m not there to please them and won’t worry if I get disapproving glares. If they want to indulge themselves in such things, that really isn’t my issue.

I doubt that I have anything further to say on the subject, and doubt that either of us will change our minds anyway so I bid you well on your journey.

 

[malphono]

Looks like another thread hijacked by an agenda.

 

[PJM]

=Auntie M;5002817]I realize there is nothing that will make anyone believe anything they refuse to believe. Most of you are young and have no trouble kneeling and getting up again. Since I am much older, I DO have trouble with this. I guess since I cannot kneel and receive, then I shall go straight to … by your standards. Yes?

I really have a terrible time accepting that traditionalist judge everyone who doesn’t “follow” the rules the way they see them. I do receive on the tongue unless I am very sick with a cold, but I am standing, not out of irreverence (as my Lord truly knows) but out of inability to kneel and get back up. When you younger ones get my age, you’ll understand. I do hope no one will tell you, you’re being disrespectful when that time comes…

No one knows what goes through another’s mind while receiving and I really do feel judging others of not be reverent, is too much like sinning. We are told by our Lord, judge not, lest you be judged. If more time was spent on worshiping our Lord and not on trying to see who is “doing it wrong”, this would be a much better world.

My dear friend in Christ,

At this evenings Mass Father spoke about both the pain and the Golry of God’s Cross. Kinda a “no pain, no Glory” thing. So dear friend why should it be different for you and me?

I’m almost 65 so I’m not sure if I’m still a “kid” of not But I genulfect and receive my God, My Creator on my tongue, Because God still permits me to!

That does not say you "**Have to, rather that it is a better way, but God only expects us to do what we CAN do. God is looking for saints, not hereo’s. **So do what you can, do it with the utmost reverence and gratitude, and don’t worry about what others thing

God bless you!

 

[PJM]

=savienu;5002585]Do you genuflect where you are supposed to during the Creed? I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen anyone at the NO do that…

Dear friend,

First I am compelled to ask; do you?

As an FYI…

The Current General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which is the document that defines these issues states: please look up section V, #274… and you will find that this is no-longer a requirement.

However passing in front of the Tabernacle and entering and exiting Church where Jesus is Present, still COMMANDS and DEMANDS this Latria Worship practice:tiphat:

Love and prayers,

 

[savienu]

Dear friend,

First I am compelled to ask; do you?

As an FYI…

The Current General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which is the document that defines these issues states: please look up section V, #274… and you will find that this is no-longer a requirement.

However passing in front of the Tabernacle and entering and exiting Church where Jesus is Present, still COMMANDS and DEMANDS this Latria Worship practice:tiphat:

Love and prayers,

First of all, I ABSOLUTELY do. Secondly, it is IN the MISSAL that they give you at Mass, that all are to bow during these 2 lines. Instead, no one does anything.

 

[rookieonedge]

If we were to take a vote about our disposition at Mass as it relates to CITH or on the tongue and also how that might relate to choice of clothing worn, I wonder how it would come out. After reading so many posts (eyes got sore), my own observation is that some agree that externals are just that and do not reflect one’s personal spirituality and what is worn is one’s own business. Others disagree maintaining that externals have an influence on a person’s spiritual disposition.

I kind of went back and forth agreeing with both arguments. But, finally, I thought back to the time when my parents required me to wear Sunday clothes to Church, school clothes for school and play clothes for play. It made sense. We wore different garb for different situations and roles. As someone mentioned, you dress in a certain way for a wedding. With some thought, I came down on the side of Layman (sorry Gospel Life!) since the way we present ourselves tells an observer something whether we like it or not, or whether it should be that way or not. It gives the message that casual dress is acceptable (it may well be under certain conditions for Mass when traveling for example) at the “wedding feast of the king.” In the gospel, those who did not have a wedding garment were cast out. Of course, the reading means much more than dress in this instance (the condition of the soul), but it’s a lesson, nevertheless, that one should be prepared for the “wedding” unlike the virgins without oil for their lamps.

Going back to my situation, suddenly everything changed (post V2), and as a teen, I wore jeans to Mass (until I dropped out altogether). What I’m TRYING to say (which has been stated so much better in earlier posts) is that although people should not be judging one another by superficial standards of dress, nonetheless, people do. Even more important is our attitude of worship to God. Going to Mass or holy hour prompts me to change from casual jeans to somewhat more formal wear. However, people who want to drop in like before or after work and visit Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament should not be reticent due to lack of proper attire. (Gum chewing is another issue I deplore).

Bottom line(s): Reverance in Church seems to be related to our attitude, behavior and possibly dress. I think Communion on the tongue recalls the reverance of yesteryear, not that one can’t receive reverently in the hand. I fear the feeling of the loss of the sacred emanates from a bigger problem: the loss of what it really means to be a Catholic in today’s Church and the inroad of secularism in society at large, which is also affecting the Church.

 

[LilyM]

Re: **Communion in the Hand? **

---

**
The truth of the matter…**

From the Feneral Instruction of the Roman Missal…

Curent, valid, licit and binding on all (thay chose obedience over current errant practice:shrug:

**"Genuflections and Bows

1. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. above, nos. 210-251).

If, however, the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.

Otherwise all who pass before the Most Blessed Sacrament genuflect, unless they are moving in procession.**

Ministers carrying the processional cross or candles bow their heads instead of genuflecting.

Love and prayers,

Not that I want to press the point, but I’d say that as instructions on the Missal, ie pertaining to the celebration of Mass, it refers only to the posture of celebrants and other ministers BEFORE or AFTER Mass. That’s because THEIR preparations before and actions after (such as clearing away the vessels and what have you) are part of the conduct of the Sacrament. Whereas the posture of the laity before and after Mass isn’t.

Be that as it may, I do (as does everyone I know) genuflect anyway so it’s no skin off anyone’s nose if my perception is wrong.

I’ll make another example then - the DOUBLE genuflection. Which I do as well in front of the exposed Sacrament. A reverent gesture fitting for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Yes. Mandatory? Not by any means - your GIRM refers only to genuflection on one knee.

 

[Layman]

Let’s cut to the nub of the matter (I hope):

Which is the better Mass, the one more likely to convert sinners, inspire vocations, make Saints and get grants of graces for the Faithful:

A Mass where:

• The priest faces the tabernacle, the East (where the sun rises), and the Host;
• The congregation likewise;
• The congregation is mainly quiet throughout, and silent for a long stretch;
• There only lay people in the sanctuary are male;
• The only lay people in the sanctuary are vested, and only say standard responses;
• The language is ancient, historical and extinct and thus with no profane associations, likewise the singing;
• The music is often provided by a pipe organ; not often heard in worldly music, especially its low bass notes;
• Because the laity are quiet by the rubrics, and the priest says a lot quietly, this influences the laity to make an effort to hush themselves and family members throughout the Mass;
• Communion is kneeling, on the tongue (see, we’re still on-topic );
• Only the priest or deacon touches the Host with his hand;
• Enthusiastic women cover their heads with a mantilla, making their age and beauty hard to guess from behind, thus being less distracting.

Or a Mass where:

• The priest faces the congregation, with his back to the tabernacle (is this why many are moved?);
• The congregation faces the priest, he is the obvious focus;
• The congregation has to join in all the time, thus leading to more general noise (hacking, coughing, whispering, kids kicking off);
• Lay women can read sacred scripture, bare-headed, in the sanctuary, in their naturally high-pitched voices;
• Lay people in the sanctuary, unvested;
• Lay people distributing communion;
• Communion standing tall, and into a hand that might have been sneezed in, or worse;
• The language used is also used outside Mass, in mundane (worldly) situations;
• Women can go bareheaded in the pews and in the sanctuary, so other women can ‘assess’ them and men can 'give ‘em the once-over’, even if they’d rather not; it’s instinctive and automatic;
• Singing is in the common language, sometimes with folk (mundane) instruments, sometimes with folky (mundane) hymns?

I find it hard to understand how the second style of Mass can be considered as good as the first.

 

[PaulinVA]

Let’s cut to the nub of the matter (I hope):

Which is the better Mass, the one more likely to convert sinners, inspire vocations, make Saints and get grants of graces for the Faithful:

I find it hard to understand how the second style of Mass can be considered as good as the first.

Layman, I understand what you are trying to do, but you have to go into that question with your preconceived notions to come up with your conclusion.

Since you subjectively phrased the points and added editorialization, well, it was rhetorical and not something that could be actually answered objectively.

You can’t compare the two forms (as far as reverence of the participants) until they are both equally available and attended.