I understand what you mean. Everything in the EF is very iconic. I don’t mean that in the cliche way, I mean that very literally. The EF is highly iconic in the sense that everything is very deliberate. There is a certain amount of liturgical dance, so to speak, that isn’t present in the OF. Take, in the EF, the Gospel and epistle sides of the altar. Or the altar rail, symbolizing the chasm between earth and heaven (of course, altar rails are present in some OF-only churches, but generally not many, and are usually disused anyway). Or the mandatory levels of singing (ferial tone, solemn tone, more solemn tone). Or the kisses whenever a bishop hands over his crosier. Or when only a bishop sits at the throne but other (like auxiliary) bishops must use a faldstool even if he is celebrant. Or the incensation rubrics of swinging the censer around the offerings rather than laterally over them. Everything has its proper place, and it doesn’t come out of its proper place. It is all very clear and ordered where things belong, and everything has its own peculiarities. It is very visual. You see what is happening, therefore you know what is happening.
The OF generally doesn’t have these things. Sure, usually it’s in the vernacular and people hear what is being said, but there aren’t these visual “helpers,” so to speak, as in the EF. It’s very bland visually. Everything is incensed the same way, everything sounds the same, everything looks the same. Yes, it’s easy to determine when the Gospel is being read versus the epistle, or when the offerings are being incensed versus the crucifix, but it isn’t iconic. It’s just, “Oh, just something else the priest is doing.” There’s not as much visual magic or flavor, IMO.
There is the argument that all these “accretions,” as some put it, found their way into the liturgical books as a way to help the faithful know what is going on in a certain moment due to the fact that the mass was nearly always in Latin. I can buy that. However, I don’t think it’s worth it to have thrown these iconic things away just because the OF is usually in the vernacular. I, for example, do not learn by hearing. I am a visual learner. Some people might find it odd, but I learned more about the OF by going to EF masses than by being present at OF masses, just because the EF generally places that much more emphasis on the visual, on the iconic, than the OF does. There are all these little triggers that I see at EF masses that aren’t present at OF masses. These things are very conducive to a layman’s mind, as they are very deliberate actions. Laymen usually need more of the iconic to understand than trained religious do. In a way, the complex is actually simpler than the simple, IMO. Maybe my argument isn’t the best as it’s presented, but meh. Tiny cues make all the difference to visual learners. EF masses tend to be more of an “experience” than do OF masses, IMO.
), the priest at my Church, when he uses incense in the OF, always swings the thurible around the chalice and paten in a circle. 