where one would do. I think that sums up so well a key aspect of the difference in liturgical sensibility between East and West. Western Rite, at least as far as it is influenced by the Roman rite, tends to be spare and even sparse in verbiage, in utter contrast to the East, which revels in word plays and complex imagery. The idea in Western liturgy by and large is that to repeat yourself is to lessen what is said. I think this is why most Western Christians will prefer the Apostles' to the Nicene Creed. In the one there is straightforward this after that, and not a Word to cut! In the other there is joyous reptition: "God of God, Light of Light, begotten, not made" and so on.
And if the original Roman rite is spare, the Lutheran recension tends to be even sparer! Just think of the enormous restraint where the old Roman canon was. Lutherans seem to have come up with the "less is more" slogan first - or rather, they lived it out.
But is it impoverishing? I don't think so. I think you have to experience the beauty of the old Lutheran practice where the Words of Christ are sung out over the elements to understand. Even though the Words stand all alone, yet the music joins them and fills out the space, if you will, and sends them right into the people's ears and hearts. All human voices fall silent before the narration of what happened that night and before the almighty voice of the Eternal Word who speaks and causes to be what He says: the bread becomes His body; the wine, His blood; and then all reached us, "for you" and "for the forgiveness of sins." What is lacking here? Not a thing. The Church's thanksgiving is her SINGING of the very words from which she lives. I am not at all surprised that in the old Lutheran Church orders the pastors were at times exhorted to tell the people to stop singing the Words of Christ with them!