I do not think the OF can be said to be theologically simpler than the EF; in fact, if anything, I think it would be more sensible to say that the OF is more theologically complex.
Aspects of the Mass such as its banquet character do not seem emphasized or even acknowledged (it perhaps being taken for granted) in the EF tradition (including traditional commentary or instruction about it); however, in the OF, it is included and made manifest. The EF emphasizes the altar while the OF includes (and is certainly supposed to) both the aspect of altar (sacrifice) and banquet-table (feast): it is (and alway has been) both altar and table, as the Scriptures make plain (especially in the table * aspect). Consequently we might call it the altar-table: the CCC does give the altar aspect generally priority of place or position in this regard.
The Mass as banquet manifests the eschatological character of the Mass as a sort of anticipation of the heavenly banquet or feast of the Lamb in heaven; it is related to the parables of Our Lord that speak of the wedding feast or banquet. It can seem contradictoy that the altar also be a table or the table also an altar, but like so much in Catholicism, this is only a paradox at most: the two aspects hardly necessitate a mutual annihilation (the one reality does not require the denial of the other). As time goes on, I think we can expect a clearer systematic reconciliation of these two elements or aspects of the Mass.
Therefore I would not say that the OF is theologically simpler. Indeed, it would seem rather that exactly because of the OF’s
complexity* in this regard we find the reason why it is so controversial and a source of so much misunderstanding, whether in circles that resist the OF or promote it, either by over-emphasizing one asect of it or another, which results in a degradation of its wholeness…
I respectfully disagree, objectively speaking. The OF tends to downplay the sacrificial aspect of the Mass through the removal of many prayers that specifically mention sacrifice. The resurrection and ascension are part of the Paschal Mystery which the Mass is supposed to manifest, but there is no Easter without Good Friday, that is, without Christ’s passion and death on the cross which merits our salvation there would be no resurrection and glorious ascension to celebrate. The summit of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice. While all aspects of the Paschal Mystery are important and interdependent, Christ died for our sins, which preceded the Resurrection. If we focus almost entirely on the Resurrection and Ascension we run the risk of forgetting what exactly we are celebrating, which is the victory over sin and death merited by Christ through his Passion and Death on the Cross. IMHO this has played a primary role in the near elimination of the concept of sin and its consequences in the minds of many of the faithful. The Mass of Paul VI omitted many of the prayers and much of the symbolism that contained a great deal of the theology of the full Paschal Mystery. The focus on the “meal” does not directly imply a sacrifice in my view. The consecration is effected in a much more ordinary, narrative format which has, again in my opinion, affected the concept of the majesty and significance of the Holy Eucharist in the minds of some of the faithful. Without better catchesis at the Parish level, people might outwardly participate more, but many don’t really understand what the significance and meaning of that participation is, even if you follw a Missal. I will say it is definitely more complex in terms of the multi-year readings cycle and four Eucharistic Prayers (which are somewhat randomly selected). It is a challenge to follow along with a daily Roman Missal. I think confusing might be a better word than complex.
YoungTradCath;9958630:
My own view on this is that “meal aspect” is fairly obvious as part of
the Sacrifice itself. To me, it is quite clear that, to have a Sacrifice, the one offering It must
eat That which was sacrificed. This seems more an anthropological/cultural/Biblical issue than theological (not that Biblical studies and theological studies are opposed to each other =) ). I have always considered the “meal aspect” just, that, an
aspect of the larger and more multidimensional thing that is the Sacrifice itself.
So it is silly to me to see people bickering about meal vs. sacrifice. And at the same time, I cannot consider it to be a “both/and” kind of thing, because the meal and sacrifice are not on the same level. The meal is an
aspect of, a
characteristic of, a natural
consequence of, the larger, all encompassing Sacrifice.
The meal means nothing without the Sacrifice, and, it must be said, the Sacrifice is not consummated without at least he who offers It eating It. The meal can have no specific meaning without that which it is dependent on, the Sacrifice. After all, it could be just as well we are talking about having a McDonalds in church or something. The meal is an aspect of the Sacrifice, not the other way around…
The “Meal” was the institution of the Eucharistic Sacrifice/Sacrament through which we were given the words of Consecration and command by our Lord, but you are right, it is of little significance without the Sacrifice.
Ultimately, the full Paschal Mystery - Christ’s Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension needs to be manifested in the liturgy. "Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.
IMHO this is more fully expressed in the EF, though it is not outright absent in the OF, which is just as valid.
mda
