I note that the first three criticisms seem to be of the kind I wasn’t speaking of – i.e. poor execution, or abuses. The fourth, about participation is one of those things that I wonder about – I wonder if it is an unfair criticism in sense that participation seems to mean more than doing something active. Likewise the fifth, reading silently or praying can be down on ones own time, but when it is done during the Mass it is during the Mass and that seems to me to be something different.
Yes, Father Z is big on the notion of silently praying along as “active participation,” and there’s definitely some truth to it. Mostly there is not, though, and I would rather that people argued against the notion of active participation in everything than try to claim that sitting and reading is somehow active. Yes, I know why the Father Z’s must do this: because Vatican II called for active participation, and now Father Z must make his argument within that context.
I have been at Masses where the priest intones the Pater Noster, prays it silently, then sings “et ne nos inducas in tentationem,” and the congregation finishes it. I’ve also been at Masses where we all join hands, sway back and forth (literally), and sing the Our Father to a schmaltzy tune. I don’t like either practice, and if forced to pick one or the other I would probably pick the first. But I’ll tell you in all honesty: I think I participated more actively in the prayer at the second Mass. I know TLM partisans will insist that that they’re engaged in gung-ho active participation by sitting and reading. I still don’t buy it. Of course, I don’t buy that active participation is the be-all and end-all of the liturgy, either, and I’m willing to say so.
Obviously there are the gung-ho post-Conciliar types who think that it you’re not up in the sanctuary handling the sacred vessels you can’t possibly be actively participating, and that point of view is totally wrong too.
And, naturally, these things are different for different people. Some people never sing at Mass, so of course it has no effect on them whether a given part of the Mass like the Gloria is sung by the choir or the congregation. I love to sing, and I have a nice voice which does creditable service to the Mass, so I’m always disappointed when I have to remain quiet.
The sixth, about Latin making it difficult to understand the prayers is another one I don’t quite understand. For those who could read, weren’t there publications that gave the vernacular?
I wonder what people would be saying today if Bishop Slattery had delivered his homily in Latin (or, say, Polish) with a translation printed and distributed. It’s
just not the same thing. Again, there may be benefits – if a bishop only speaks Polish, you’re getting Polish or nothing – but there’s no sense arguing that this is an optimal state of affairs, nor that hearing a foreign language and reading along with a translation is the same as hearing someone speaking to you in your native tongue.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think these things you mention are absurdities like some of the criticisms we see of both forms. But, I still can’t help feel that they don’t have the weight of the best criticisms I’ve seen of the Ordinary Form.
Well, I’m not sure what the best criticisms you’ve seen of the Ordinary Form are. I do think one thing to remember is what exactly it is we’re comparing. Today, the EF is celebrated in very few parishes, only by unabashedly orthodox, generally well-educated priests who are fanatical about the rubrics and devoted to the Mass as the source and summit of Catholic life. They know that critics are watching them – and their movement – with an unforgiving eye. And every once in a blue moon, we will have something like last week’s Pontifical High Mass, which gets shown on EWTN and discussed. There’s a strong tendency to compare this to the utterly average OF Mass celebrated in every utterly average American parish every week, or, worse, to things like the Los Angeles LAREC conference Mass, which gets circulated on YouTube and discussed.
So people will compare an EF Mass of exceedingly rare greatness to an OF Mass of exceedingly rare awfulness. I’ve read a lot of comments in the last week that run, “The Mass at the shrine was wonderful. Tell me again, why did we give this up for puppet masses with rock bands and dancing deacons?” It’s, obviously, not a valid criticism.
In general, the criticisms I hear of the OF are criticisms of its worst examples. And since the EF is presently celebrated only by a small handful of unabashedly orthodox and highly educated priests who know that they, and their entire movement, are constantly under the unforgiving gaze of critical eyes, there just aren’t such terrible examples of the EF to be had today.
And it might well simply be the case that you’re own opinions line up better with the EF, which is why you find criticisms of the EF weak and criticisms of the OF trenchant. Again, I’m not sure just which criticisms of the OF you find quite so cutting, but if they line up with your existing beliefs that might well explain why you see them as especially incisive.
I am curious though what the strongest criticisms you’ve heard of the OF are, particularly if they can be phrased in a fashion more specific than “It’s just not as reverent and worshipful” or “It’s just not as Catholic.” Those aren’t very useful criticisms, because different people can – and are fully entitled to – have different views of what they find reverent or prayerful. Even within the TLM community, I know there are people who prefer a silent Low Mass and people who prefer a sung High Mass.
or 
I’m not an audible pray-er on my own though, since I find I can formulate my thoughts better if I’m not trying to say them out loud. I think rather, that a sincere and focused prayer whether audible or not speaks louder to God than one you just “go with the flow” on. And when I’ve said the Our Father out loud, I’m constantly guilty of just flowing along with it, and not really thinking about it. That is though, just my personal experience.