Closed concept kitchen/dining room:
I personally don't like open concept homes where everything is in one room, like the family room, dining room and kitchen.
Real cooks make a lot of noise and a big mess when they cook, pleasant and unpleasant smells come forth. Pots and pans a clanging, oil is splattering, water is running, and there are smells and smoke and steam and gross things in the kitchen. Let's face it dead animals are being prepare for consumption. Humans like to eat dead animals and their body parts.
So a kitchen that is away from the rest of the living area and with a door that can be closed if things get too loud is what I like. Why should the cook be engaged with others in the living room as s/he cooks? Should the focus be on cooking not engaging others?
The same is true with the Mass. The modern concept of the Ordinary Form is that the cook/priest always be in the living room of the congregation engaging them with his smile, good manners, great acting skills and effervescent personality. And when he cooks (offers the bread and wine and then offers the Bread and Wine in the Eucharistic Prayer) he needs to be in the living room doing it so he can engage the congregation.
In the Old Testament Sacrificial worship where real animals were sacrificed/slaughtered and then cooked over a real fire, this action of the temple priests was in a completely separate location from the congregation. Once the sacrifice took place and the animal was offered to God, the animal was cooked and served with the temple priests eating first or at least sampling and then bringing it to the place where the congregation was, their separate dining room.
In the western Christianity's Mass, the rood screen acted as the barrier between the kitchen and dining room or its adaptation the altar railing. In the east the iconostasis cut the kitchen off from the dining room.
There were separate locations for cooking and eating and the cook/priest didn't have to hobnob with the congregation while he cooked and prayed on their behalf. He had more important things to do: pray and sacrifice.
After 50 years of experimenting with the open concept kitchen and dining room in our modern and renovated churches, isn't it time to say the experiment hasn't really been in keeping with the tradition of the east or west and that in the west we need to rediscover our ancient and more prolonged tradition of a separate kitchen and dining room?
What in the name of God and all that is holy is wrong with having the Ordinary Form of the Mass celebrated in a pre-Vatican II style Church as a pre-Vatican II Church would have been designed and with the high altar against the wall and higher, much higher up than the nave of the church and ad orientem? Why not have the cook/priest doing what he is to do to prepare and offer the Sacrifice to God and then the cook/priest turns to the congregation at the "Behold the Lamb of God..." and the congregation in their living and dining room space coming to their table which is the Communion Railing?
Are not priest and laity together in this concept also? Is not the Word of God still proclaimed and served? Is not the bread and wine prepared and offered? Does not the bread and wine become the Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration? Does not the priest then offer our Lord and His one Sacrifice to God the Father in an "unbloody way" and does not God the Father graciously accpet this Sacrificial Offering and return it to the cook/priest for Him to consume and drink?
Does not the cook/priest then turn to the congregation and they come to participate in the Body and Blood of Christ offered for them and their salvation as Food and Drink for the journey to heaven?
Can't everything old be new again and viewed through the prism of Vatican II and its theology but appear the same as pre-Vatican II and its theology? Does it have to be either/or rather than both/and as the Vatican II envisioned?