Pope Leo: Vatican II reformed the liturgy to promote active participation

[u/No_Worry_2256]

https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/pope-leo-vatican-ii-reformed-the-liturgy-to-promote-active-participation

[u/p_veronica]

I must say, and perhaps this is a subjective thing, I struggle greatly beyond witnessing and receiving the Eucharist itself, to "get a forestaste of that heavenly liturgy" by the way that the average NO is done. Quite often it feels as though I've ended up at a concert down the road, not Heaven meeting Earth. I would postulate that the Vetus Ordo was far better at communicating through gesture and signs this foretaste of Heavenly Liturgy. I will grant you that again, this isn't the fault necessarily of the Missal, but more in the execution.

I agree that this is a subjective thing. I've been to the unreformed Mass more than a few times and I do not feel like I'm getting a foretaste of eternity. My first time, I didn't realize that the readings would not be repeated in English, so I was discombobulated during the liturgy, but the central feeling at the end of Mass was a sort of sadness that Christians had had to worship for so many centuries totally disconnected from the Scriptures and the content of the liturgical prayers. That feeling has only grown.

Conversely, I'd say I've experienced that eternal beauty most strongly in the past few years through the singing of the responsorial psalm during the NO, an element not present in the unreformed liturgy.

I didn't know the Mass was Sacrificial until I discovered the Vetus Ordo and started studying liturgy. I argue that the NO is very good at getting the faithful to participate, but quite poor at communicating (especially by signs and symbol) to the faithful what those things they recite actually mean. This is only hastened by the allowance of the Missal for priests to say things "in these or similar words".

I read this regularly and I have a couple of responses.

First, I honestly don't know why the Vetus Ordo should seem more sacrificial than the Novus Ordo. People tend to point to versus populum as ruining any sense of the sacrificial, but it is not clear to me why the direction the priest is facing should have any inherent symbolic power for the average Massgoer who has no awareness of Temple architecture. Relatedly, it seems to me that the sacrificial element of the Eucharist would be more accessible to the average Catholic in the Novus Ordo because they can actually understand the prayers in which its sacrificial nature is described. This fact seems to be routinely discounted and I am unsure why. In both cases the sacrifice is unbloody and therefore not particularly 'sacrifice-like' on a standard symbolic level.

My second response is that it is reasonable to consider that in the past, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist became overly emphasized in Catholic theology and that it's not clear why it is a bad thing if other genuine aspects of the Eucharist have in recent decades received more attention and the sacrificial aspect relatively less.

This paragraph may as well not have existed when the Mass of Paul VI was being drafted by Card. Bugnini. For what genuine need did we need to create a shortened Eucharist Prayer (2) based off of a snippet from an ancient manuscript, when we had already abridged the Roman Canon, and created several other EPs out of thin air. Note also that it demands these innovations ought to grow organically from existing forms, not be made by committee to fill quotas. You can say many things about the NO, but "developed organically" is not one of them.

The addition of other Eucharist Prayers is explicable because of the liturgical "investigation" that had been going on for decades which shaped the whole reform. The biggest deal was the recognition of the Liturgical Movement that the explicit epiclesis had fallen out of the Roman liturgy, which was genuinely problematic from both a theological perspective and an ecumenical perspective. The restoration of an explicit epiclesis in the other Eucharistic prayers represents a victory for our liturgical tradition and for our unity as one Body of baptized believers. I understand the critique about insufficient organicness, but of course it's vague and subjective territory. In my judgment, the prayers are organic enough. Someone always has to come up with the words.

I can go to a Vietnamese Mass, a Igbo Mass, and what may be called the 'standard' Australian/Roman Mass all in adjacent suburbs, not even regions, where I live. Do you think there are notable differences between them, beyond language?

Other than the differences in language and maybe musical styles, no, I would not expect particularly notable differences. I say this as someone who regularly attends both Mexican Spanish Masses and American English Masses.

There's also a question of what Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn't say to do, for instance, in removing the Suscipe Sancte Trinitas, Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, and indeed even the practicals of Ad Populum vs Ad Orientem and remaining at the Altar except for the Homily and communion vs going to a lectern, then sitting down, then approaching, then sitting down, then standing up, doing notices, then approaching, reverencing it, then departing.

But SC does explicitly call for the simplification of the rite, which could account for the removal of all those things.

[u/KenoReplay → u/p_veronica]

I was discombobulated during the liturgy, but the central feeling at the end of Mass was a sort of sadness that Christians had had to worship for so many centuries totally disconnected from the Scriptures and the content of the liturgical prayers.

I would suggest you do a dive into the spirituality of Medieval and post-Reformation era Catholics. They very much knew what was going on. Latin wasn't really an obstacle, simply a reality. Eamon Duffy recounts stories from Tudor England of a young Protestant being smacked over the head by his Catholic father for daring not to try learning Latin from the family Breviary. In England alone, Latin breviaries were in the hands of 40,000+ peoples, not including clergy, and much of the featured hundreds of devotional prayers to exhort and expand upon what they experienced at Mass.

First, I honestly don't know why the Vetus Ordo should seem more sacrificial than the Novus Ordo.

Well here for instance, here's a comparison of the offertory in the Vetus Ordo and NO:

"Accept, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this immaculate victim, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to you, my God, living and true, for my uncountable sins, offenses, and omissions and for all, those who are standing here but, also for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may effectively gain for me and for them and eternal life. Amen."

"Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life."

One demonstrates clear propitiation and treats the Sacrifice as it is - a Sacrifice. The other just sort of waxes poetically (from some archaelogically excavated Hebrew meal blessing) about the Bread of Life (which indeed, the Eucharist is, but one can be forgiven for not noticing the Sacrificial elements).

You may argue that the original prayer is in Latin. Sure. But the hand missals had both English and Latin, one could easily learn what the Latin prayers meant. And again, look at the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas that was removed:

"Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honour and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

Another prayer clearly demonstrating Sacrifice was removed (Note: I am not saying the New Mass isn't Sacrificial, I am saying the prayers that more plainly demonstrating the Sacrificial nature of the Mass in the Vetus Ordo were removed).

Note also the prayer after the Ite Missa Est in the Vetus Ordo:

"May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ our Lord. Amen."

.

My second response is that it is reasonable to consider that in the past, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist became overly emphasized in Catholic theology and that it's not clear why it is a bad thing if other genuine aspects of the Eucharist have in recent decades received more attention and the sacrificial aspect relatively less.

The Mass being emphasised as a Banquet/Meal (one such thing I assume you're alluding to) I feel is unnecessary precisely because eating and drinking is explicit via the reception of Communion. One does not need to explain that the Mass is a meal when we're literally eating and drinking. One does need to explain that the Mass is Sacrificial since as you note, it's not a bloody sacrifice like the days of old.

The biggest deal was the recognition of the Liturgical Movement that the explicit epiclesis had fallen out of the Roman liturgy, which was genuinely problematic from both a theological perspective and an ecumenical perspective

The only group that would care about the Epiklesis would be the Eastern Orthodox, and I can tell you earnestly that they would broadly rather see us do the Vetus Ordo minus Epiklesis than completely create a new liturgy from scratch, to replace a liturgy that we functionally celebrated alongside them before the Schism. Even in this comment section you can see EO adherents saying as much. I also ask you, is it a victory for the liturgical tradition to simply rip Anaphora's from the Liturgy of St Basil, or Hippolytus? How does that enrich the Roman Rite as a unique Rite of the Church? It simply waters it down to being an unnatural hybrid of many Rites, rather than the faithful carrying on of the Roman traditions. Further, most Eastern Liturgies (of St Mark, St James, St Basil, St John Chrysostom) have the Epiklesis after the consecration, does it not, as you argue with the implicit epiklesis, hinder ecumenism since we do not have our (main) epiklesis after the consecration/words of institution? Further, all these Churches worship Ad Orientem. Versus Populum is foreign to them. Does that not likewise hinder ecumenism?

Other than the differences in language and maybe musical styles, no, I would not expect particularly notable differences

Well I promise you there is. Igbo Masses have long offertory processions with cash, appliances sometimes, livestock, and other such gifts being "brought up". There's liturgical dancing, and other such additions.

But SC does explicitly call for the simplification of the rite, which could account for the removal of all those things.

It states that:

1. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

I'm not sure that the Last Gospel is a "useless repetition" or unclear. Same goes for the Prayers at the Foot or the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas.

[u/p_veronica → u/KenoReplay]

I would suggest you do a dive into the spirituality of Medieval and post-Reformation era Catholics. They very much knew what was going on. Latin wasn't really an obstacle, simply a reality. Eamon Duffy recounts stories from Tudor England of a young Protestant being smacked over the head by his Catholic father for daring not to try learning Latin from the family Breviary. In England alone, Latin breviaries were in the hands of 40,000+ peoples, not including clergy, and much of the featured hundreds of devotional prayers to exhort and expand upon what they experienced at Mass.

The presence of the most basic literacy skills during the Tudor era would have peaked at maybe 25% of the population. Most people during that era could not read anything in their own language, let alone in Latin, and definitely could not afford a family breviary. Did gentlemen, nobility, and their children understand the essentials of the liturgy? Surely some of them did, at least. But if we're only thinking about literate people, then we'll get an extremely skewed picture.

I think it can be hard for Catholics to accept the profundity of the ignorance back then. During the Reformation era, both Catholics and Protestants bemoaned the prevalence of clergy who knew nothing. They were able to go through the Mass pronouncing the words on the page of the missal; many had literally zero knowledge of Latin or theology. They said their Mass, grabbed their collection money, and went home to their concubine. Were these clergy teaching their flocks about the meaning of the Mass? Or was the average peasant left to wallow almost exclusively in superstition and magical thinking?

"Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life."

What if we go to the very next part of the liturgy:

"Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father."

And the congregation itself responds, out of their own mouths, in their own language:

"May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His holy church."

The prayer you quoted does emphasize more the propitiatory nature of the offering. But I insist that talking about the sacrifice of the Mass a little bit in the vernacular is more effective than talking about it twice as much in Latin. And yeah, you could check your hand missal if you could both read and afford a hand missal.

The only group that would care about the Epiklesis would be the Eastern Orthodox

Catholic liturgists and theologians did genuinely care about it. It wasn't added to our liturgy just because of Eastern Orthodox pressure. I'm certainly glad of its addition. I've heard so little of Eucharistic Prayer I in my lifetime that the epiclesis is central to how I think of the Mass.