Pros and cons of both EF and of form OF of the mass

[franklinf]

T

1. I’m just spectator at the sacrafice. Its the Iconostasis keeps me away from the Orthodox Churches.

Spectator in the TLM? Not sure what you mean by that exactly. You are a spectator in both forms. No one but the priest has any role to play in the transubstantiation. Only his hands are consecrated, he acts in persona Christi. The laity have no direct role in that regardless of form.
If you are referring to the fact that the N.O. has the laity speak verbally throughout, then I would say you are again misunderstanding the role of the laity. We are called to actively participate in the Mass by uniting our prayers with that of the priest. We most certainly don’t spectate in the TLM. We pray the Mass with the aims of imperation, reparation, adoration, and thanksgiving.

 

[LUISV]

We are called to actively participate in the Mass by uniting our prayers with that of the priest. We most certainly don’t spectate in the TLM. We pray the Mass with the aims of imperation, reparation, adoration, and thanksgiving.

I never said you didn’t. I said I feel a deeper immersion. Its easier for me to, as you so eloquently put it, “pray the Mass with the aims of imperation, reparation, adoration, and thanksgiving.” in the OF.

This thread is not about what is better or worse. Its about subjective likes of both forms. Call me jaded if you like. But nothing is more immersive than participating in a private Mass. Just a few friends around around the alter in a small chapel. I have had the privalege and it has in truth biased me to the OF.