The always interesting M. Jackson Osborn commenting over at the Musica Sacra discussion boards:
the studied absence of the vocative leaves something to be desired greatly. It might seem, on the surface, to be but a small thing; but there is a tremendous difference of respect and awe (and concommitant reality) between the somewhat presumptuous 'Lord, you are holy...', and the appropriately reverential 'O Lord, you are holy...'. And, not just of a difference in the sense of proper attitude and worship due, but of cadence and poetic feel; perhaps one could say even 'of heiraticity'. (?)
The restoration of the first person in the Creed is laudable, as is the obligatory bowing at the incarnation.
'Consubstantial...' (a really nice & fine locution) is at least as potent and fulfilling as the Anglican Use's 'being of one substance with...'. They are each impeccable in their expession of the ineffable unity of Substance shared by the Divine Persons, a didactic and philosophical task at which the rather nebulous and gossamer
'one in being' fails.
Bells should be rungen, and Te Deums sungen after Masses Solemn, [LOVED that!] and a new feast should be put on the kalendar: The Bestowal of THE Translation of Novus Ordo.
A Te Deum is in order! Just think of it! People will be Smarted UP for a change, not....... any more.
I wonder if neglecting proper address to the Lord, and the near-extinction of the custom of capitalizing pronouns displanting names and titles of Persons of the Blessed Trinity have notcontributed to a certain degree of confusion as to to whom we speak at Liturgy.
The gotta-make-eye-contact school of psalms singing, absurd even on practical grounds when chanting for a congregation of hundreds; and the acting out of Christ speaking to His disciples at the Last Supper and showing 'round the bread, during the Eucharistic Prayer despite its being addressed to "You, our Almighty Father" -- are they cause? are they affect? are they part of a vicious cycle?