Dear Pater, why is it that the words of Consecration is said silent by the Priest in the Extraordinary Form but said out loud in the Ordinary Form?
Are there pros and cons when it comes to both ways of saying consecration and as a Priest which way is best for you?
In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, which in its Latin translation stretches back from the time of St. Gregory the Great, developed in such a way that the soft-spoken words of Consecration were seen as something reflecting and fulfilling the Temple Worship behind and beyond the veil of the Temple of Jerusalem. The Words were of the "Holy of Holies" and their great Mystery was reflected in the soft, whispered voice in which they were spoken.
The Ordinary Form, on the other hand, has not seen lengthy historical development, having been fabricated by committe only in 1969. It was put together at a historical moment when there seemed to be a desire among elite intellectuals to unveil Mystery, and to lay every thing bare on the table of scientific analysis, so to speak.
There is no doubt that the form of consecration in both the EF and the OF are valid, as they are both in accord with any elements found in all formulae of Consecration of the Sacred Species found historically in any Catholic Rite, bot West and East.
The only judgment for me by which the Words of Consecration are best rendered is adequately posited within the framework of whichever rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass I am celebrating. What is best for me is that the integrity of the particular usage of the Roman Rite is being employed. As you have indicated, the EF calls for silently spoken Words of Consecration, and the OF calls for the Words to be spoken aloud. Respecting the inherent integrity of either rite is best for me.
Fr. Timothy Johnson