Liturgy as expression of doctrine

[floresco]

While the liturgy primarily concerns worship, it also expresses doctrine. I’ve been thinking about the Church teaching on the Eucharist as propitiatory sacrifice:

CCC 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

In the Traditional Latin Mass this doctrine is expressed in the prayers, for example, this prayer from the Offeratory (translated):

Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting

How is this doctrine expressed in Ordinary Form of the Mass? I have looked and cannot find anything of comparable clarity or explicitness. Why would something so important have been removed?

 

[CDNowak]

There are phrases that touch on the subject, but I absolutely agree as to the clarity and richness of the Offertory. How/Why it got removed is a good question… Perhaps the better one though is, can we have it back?

 

[EasterJoy]

Clear and explicit are in the eye of the beholder, to some extent, particularly in the realm of ritual.

For instance, it could theoretically be argued that it is more clear and explicit that all of the baptised present are praying the Mass when someone other than the server takes part in the responses of the people and when the prayers are said in the vernacular language at a volume that can be heard by the people. Lex orandi, it could be argued, kind of implies that the people being transformed by what they pray actually hear and readily understand the words they’re praying. Yet I think people who participate at Mass when the priest stands ad orientum and prays so that he cannot be heard and only the servers respond consider their participation quite clear and explicit, wouldn’t you?

I have to say your point is well-taken. I like the liturgies that worded in a more explicit way over the less explicit ones. I just wouldn’t go so far as to say that the doctrine is not there because someone could think of a way to be more explicit. Ritual doesn’t work quite that way.

 

[floresco]

For instance, it could theoretically be argued that it is more clear and explicit that all of the baptised present are praying the Mass when someone other than the server takes part in the responses of the people and when the prayers are said in the vernacular language at a volume that can be heard by the people. Lex orandi, it could be argued, kind of implies that the people being transformed by what they pray actually hear and readily understand the words they’re praying. Yet I think people who participate at Mass when the priest stands ad orientum and prays so that he cannot be heard and only the servers respond consider their participation quite clear and explicit, wouldn’t you?

Even if the words are inaudible as implemented, their meaning is clear and explicit. They are easily available to anyone who bothers to read along in a missal. But if the doctrine is missing or obscured in the words, it doesn’t matter how loudly they are said, it won’t make the doctrine materialize.

It is all very well for the Mass to be in a language that people understand, but, if what they are hearing is vague and ambiguous in regard to central doctrines of the faith, why bother? There has to be something substantial to understand.

I have to say your point is well-taken. I like the liturgies that worded in a more explicit way over the less explicit ones. I just wouldn’t go so far as to say that the doctrine is not there because someone could think of a way to be more explicit. Ritual doesn’t work quite that way.

There is nothing in the Ordinary Form that denies that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the Sacrifice on the Cross and that it is therefore a propitiatory sacrifice. There are some vague references to the Mass being of some sort of benefit to us which could refer to this. But there is nothing that would convey the Church teaching to a person who did not already know it. Given the general state of catechesis (which is a whole other topic) it is quite a possible for a Catholic not to know this. This doctrine goes beyond being implicit. It is hidden, only hinted at for those who know what to look for.

 

[floresco]

There are phrases that touch on the subject, but I absolutely agree as to the clarity and richness of the Offertory. How/Why it got removed is a good question… Perhaps the better one though is, can we have it back?

That is a great question! The upcoming new translation of the OF addresses many of its problems, but this problem remains since it is not a translation issue. What would be involved in putting back the Offertory? Could the Pope do it with a Motu Proprio?

 

[ProVobis]

Even if the words are inaudible as implemented, their meaning is clear and explicit. They are easily available to anyone who bothers to read along in a missal. But if the doctrine is missing or obscured in the words, it doesn’t matter how loudly they are said, it won’t make the doctrine materialize.

I quite agree about the Offertory in the EF and I agree with you about the meaning being clear and explicit. I think the inaudibility of the EF, however, does turn a lot of people off, even more so than having it said it a “language they don’t understand.” It’s hard for today’s Catholic to understand something which he can’t hear, Latin or no Latin, missal or no missal. An English-only person seems to have less of a problem attending an Italian or Polish Mass (maybe because he might have friends or family there) than the EF. Not saying that I like it but just saying.

 

[ProVobis]

In the Traditional Latin Mass this doctrine is expressed in the prayers, for example, this prayer from the Offeratory (translated):

Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting

By the way, this particular translation has been criticized by some Latin purists, particularly for the “host” word. Although the Latin word is “hostia” nevertheless the word can mean “victim” as well. A victim is sacrificed.

Might be better to stick with the Latin for the time being in the EF. We don’t need translation wars there.

 

[floresco]

I quite agree about the Offertory in the EF and I agree with you about the meaning being clear and explicit. I think the inaudibility of the EF, however, does turn a lot of people off, even more so than having it said it a “language they don’t understand.”

I suspect you are right. The Canon of the Mass has not always been inaudible. Changing it to audible is a change in rubrics with minimal theological implications. It is a very different kind of change than the removal of the Offertory.

It seems to me that many people don’t realize that there are significant differences between OF and EF at the level of doctrine. Most of the discussion I encounter seems to focus on externals like language and which way the priest faces. But the two forms of the Mass differ in their ability to convey important truths of the Faith. Crucial doctrines have been virtually removed from the OF.

I have my personal preferences in regard to language and audibility. But surely clear expression of Catholic teaching is not a matter of preference. Isn’t this an objective criterion on which we can assess liturgy?

 

[floresco]

By the way, this particular translation has been criticized by some Latin purists, particularly for the “host” word. Although the Latin word is “hostia” nevertheless the word can mean “victim” as well. A victim is sacrificed.

I’m not sure that the English word “victim” is especially clear either. Most people think of it in the sense of one who has been harmed by a crime or accident. The older meaning of a creature killed as a religious sacrifice is not widely known.

At least when it’s in Latin people realize that they don’t understand. In English, the words seem to mean things that they don’t.

 

[CDNowak]

That is a great question! The upcoming new translation of the OF addresses many of its problems, but this problem remains since it is not a translation issue. What would be involved in putting back the Offertory? Could the Pope do it with a Motu Proprio?

Theoretically, that would be the least it would involve. Practically, however, it most likely won’t happen until there is another revision (4th edition) of the Missal, and that isn’t even on the horizon. (The 3rd is taking 11 years from promulgation to implementation).

Agree also with the possibility of more audibility (and vernacular readings) for the EF. However those are potential deal-breakers (even as options) with the SSPX, so I don’t see that resolved before the canonical status is decided.

 

[EasterJoy]

I suspect you are right. The Canon of the Mass has not always been inaudible. Changing it to audible is a change in rubrics with minimal theological implications. It is a very different kind of change than the removal of the Offertory.

It seems to me that many people don’t realize that there are significant differences between OF and EF at the level of doctrine. Most of the discussion I encounter seems to focus on externals like language and which way the priest faces. But the two forms of the Mass differ in their ability to convey important truths of the Faith. Crucial doctrines have been virtually removed from the OF.

I have my personal preferences in regard to language and audibility. But surely clear expression of Catholic teaching is not a matter of preference. Isn’t this an objective criterion on which we can assess liturgy?

It isn’t my intention to advocate for the one over the other. The OP asked why a change would be made that could be interpreted as being less clear or explicit. I ventured a guess.

The OP said this in reply: Even if the words are inaudible as implemented, their meaning is clear and explicit. They are easily available to anyone who bothers to read along in a missal. That is an inch from saying that what the OF leaves out is substantial, whereas what the EF leaves out, well, “if you took any trouble, you’d know that”. I don’t find that answer rhetorically satisfying. In other words, it might satisfy the converted, but I don’t think it would convert the doubtful. Well, the Mass is for the converted, so maybe that is no issue.

With my scholarly background in the Mass, getting into this any further would only be foolish. I’d just be guessing, and I have no desire to make my betters tear their garments on account of my foolishness. All I can say is that I didn’t learn the meaning of the Mass from the EF, yet I learned what you’re talking about by the time I had made my First Holy Communion. The way the EF speaks about these truths is beautiful, but it never occurred to me before I understood the EF that the OF Masses of my childhood didn’t say precisely the same thing. Do with that bit of experience what you will.

 

[Brendan]

The OP said this in reply: *Even if the words are inaudible as implemented, their meaning is clear and explicit. *

The primary reason that the prayers are inaudible is that they are not our prayers. It is the prayer of Christ (in the person of the priest) to the Father.

All the prayers that are what the faithful are supposed to pray WERE and ARE auditible.

Read Pope Benedict’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. It is designed for the general laity to read and describes clearly what the Mass is trying to accomplish. The last chaper “The Body and Prayer” is particularly insightful as to what the laity should be doing to ‘actively, fully and consciencely’ participate in the Mass.

Again, this book is not a work for theologians, but rather for common people like us.

 

[EasterJoy]

The primary reason that the prayers are inaudible is that they are not our prayers. It is the prayer of Christ (in the person of the priest) to the Father.

All the prayers that are what the faithful are supposed to pray WERE and ARE auditible.

In that case, though, then the issue of this thread–that is, the issue of differences in the explicit wording and subsequent catechetical value of prayers offered over the bread and wine prior to their consecration–would be moot, because the prayers cited are not prayers spoken by the faithful, but rather prayers spoken by the priest.

But again, not wanting to argue one side or the other, I’ve put in enough.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure that the English word “victim” is especially clear either. Most people think of it in the sense of one who has been harmed by a crime or accident. The older meaning of a creature killed as a religious sacrifice is not widely known.

It’s used after the consecration too. Some missals have it as “victim.” But, as I said, if we keep it as “hostia” there won’t be controversy.

At least when it’s in Latin people realize that they don’t understand. In English, the words seem to mean things that they don’t.

But given the right motivation, they could perhaps understand a little Latin, enough to know the prayers anyway. The closer to the truth, the better. We don’t want to approximate the truth. As I tell people, π is π, not 3.14.

 

[JMJ_coder]

In the Traditional Latin Mass this doctrine is expressed in the prayers, for example, this prayer from the Offeratory (translated):

Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting

From the Preparation of the Priest:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who by the will of the Father and the work of the Holy Spirit, through your death gave life to the world; free me by this your most holy Body and Blood from all my sins and from every evil; keep me always faithful to your commandments, and never let me be parted from you.

 

[EasterJoy]

The closer to the truth, the better. We don’t want to approximate the truth. As I tell people, π is π, not 3.14.

Great analogy, and not just because there is a degree to which an attempt at an exact response can be less true than a descriptive response. I mean because there is a real heavenly liturgy being entered into, being truly rejoined by way of commemoration. Although there is a sense in which what “works” to express it may differ from one time to another, ultimately isn’t about opinion. There is an objective reality being expressed (and lived), and not just dry theoretical truths.

 

[Knight_James]

The primary reason that the prayers are inaudible is that they are not our prayers. It is the prayer of Christ (in the person of the priest) to the Father.

All the prayers that are what the faithful are supposed to pray WERE and ARE auditible.

Read Pope Benedict’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. It is designed for the general laity to read and describes clearly what the Mass is trying to accomplish. The last chaper “The Body and Prayer” is particularly insightful as to what the laity should be doing to ‘actively, fully and consciencely’ participate in the Mass.

Again, this book is not a work for theologians, but rather for common people like us.

Thanks for the insight and the book suggestion, Brendan. I will be ordering it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

But given the right motivation, they could perhaps understand a little Latin, enough to know the prayers anyway. The closer to the truth, the better. We don’t want to approximate the truth. As I tell people, π is π, not 3.14.

Though, the truth can be expressed in various ways and in various languages.

For example, is π = 3.14159… or is π = C/d (or any other of countless ways to express π). Or for another mathematical example, which is the current representation: 64; 8^2; sixtyfour; |-64|; 2*32; sessantaquattro; √4096; 60+4; 83-19; three score and four; 2^6; 192/3; one more than sixtythree; etc., etc.?

In like manner, in doctrine which is the correct word to use: substantia; oὐσία; substance; essence; essenza; being; etc., etc.?

 

[CDNowak]

Though, the truth can be expressed in various ways and in various languages.

For example, is π = 3.14159… or is π = C/d (or any other of countless ways to express π). Or for another mathematical example, which is the current representation: 64; 8^2; sixtyfour; |-64|; 2*32; sessantaquattro; √4096; 60+4; 83-19; three score and four; 2^6; 192/3; one more than sixtythree; etc., etc.?

In like manner, in doctrine which is the correct word to use: substantia; oὐσία; substance; essence; essenza; being; etc., etc.?

Even good analogies have their breaking point… different mathematical expressions mean exactly the same thing because Math is precisely defined.

Languages, on the other hand have infinite shades of meaning. Being vs substance, for example. Replace substance with being in the Creed and it no longer defines the faith to exclude Arianism (the difference in the Greek between the orthodox homoousios and the heretical homoiousious is literally one iota).

 

[MarkThompson]

The primary reason that the prayers are inaudible is that they are not our prayers. It is the prayer of Christ (in the person of the priest) to the Father.

All the prayers that are what the faithful are supposed to pray WERE and ARE auditible.

Actually, practically the whole thing is inaudible, including things that are definitely not spoken in persona Christi, such as prayers at the foot of the altar, the Confiteor, and the offertory.

I’m with you on the fact that the nature of these prayers means that they do not have to be audible. However, it does not mean that they do have to be inaudible. And I suspect that there are few dedicated TLMers who decline to follow along with the priest’s silent prayers because, “hey, I’m not ‘supposed to pray’ that part.”