This glorious Canonization Mass is primarily in Latin including the chanting of the Gospel which also includes it being chanted in Greek. Both lungs of the Church functioning in the Holy Sacrifice.
When you compared the Latin chants of this Mass with the hodgepodge of styles, language and ideologies of Archbishop Cupich's installation Mass, you see how the Ordinary Form of the Mass can recapture the ethos of the Latin Rite Mass even in the Ordinary Form. This is a no-brainer! I simply don't know what is up with bishops who want triumphalist liturgies for their priests' ordinations or ordinations/installations of bishops in this country. It makes no sense and then to have multiple styles of music and language in order to be religiously politically correct is an abomination in the Latin Rite and of the purpose of the Latin Rite Mass to unify the worshiping Church at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a cohesiveness where the results of the mixing of languages at tower of babel is reversed and very much in line with the reversal of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.
I firmly believe that the Fathers of Vatican II would have envisioned this type of Mass at the Vatican this morning for Christ the King to have been the way the Mass would have been celebrated throughout the world in chant, language and style. When oh when are we going to be faithful to Vatican II's liturgical vision?
This Mass on Christ the King Sunday in Rome, a canonization Mass, has far more languages and cultures in attendance then an installation of a bishop in Chicago or anywhere else and the Latin works to unify the Church and keep the liturgy away from ideological manipulations to appease the cultures and languages present.
One thing that no one seems to comment upon is that each and every outdoor Mass at St. Peter's has during the Liturgy of the Word the reading of the Scriptures from two different locations as in the Extraordinary Form. The Old Testament, Responsorial Psalm and Epistle are read from the "Epistle Side's" ambo and the Gospel from the Gospel's side ambo.
Immediately following Vatican II when the Scriptures were moved to the ambo, most churches set up two ambos, maintaining the Epistle Side and Gospel Side as these traditionally were, although with the priest facing the congregation, the positions should have been switched, but weren't and are not even at the Vatican today.
This tells me that it is permissible to have two ambos and divide the readings between the two. What do you think?