Was the 'sacrificial' theology of the Mass always considered central and primary ? If not, when did it become so?

[Samuel_Mary]

One of the key objections of traditionalists, and indeed some in the curia at the time, to Mass of Paul VI is that it watered down the notion of sacrifice, which had (it is at least implied) been the central point of the liturgical action since time immemorial. The allegation was that this change in liturgical theology was made to appease Protestants and aid with ecumenism.

The problem with this allegation is that, if it were true, one would still see primacy of the sacrificial theology in the East, which never experienced a major liturgical reform. However, although some of the Priest’s secret prayers in the Divine Liturgy do make reference to sacrifice, it does not seem to be the central theme; not considered the primary action or function of the liturgy. Indeed, in my research I have come across conversations among Orthodox where they cannot even agree whether the Divine Liturgy is a propitiatory sacrifice or not!

So then, this makes one turn toward, and begin to entertain, the counter-narrative put forward by pro-Liturgical Reform Catholics - that the Council of Trent, being a Council in reaction to a crisis and most ecumenical councils throughout history were, over-emphasized the sacrificial theology in a reactionary way towards the Protestants, as the firmest possible rebuttal of the Protestant’s criticisms of it. Thus we got a lop-sided theology of the Mass that did not emphasize the Eucharistic banquet, the value of assembly of the faithful and Christ present in them, the proclamation of the scriptures and so forth. Everything was about the consecration and the sacrifice, everything else was so peripheral as to be treated as almost dangerous to the purity of the theology of the Mass. This strong emphasis was an innovation.

However, this cannot be entirely true either, for the obvious reason that one of Martin Luther and his confrere’s main objections was the sacrificial theology of the Mass - the ‘popish abomination’ as they called it. So clearly that indicates that said theology had become very prominent before the Reformation and the Council of Trent.

So, did we have a more balanced and multi-faceted notion of what the Mass represented, more similar to the modern Ordinary Form and its accompanying theology (and, unless I’m misunderstanding the East, the Divine Liturgy too) in some early stage of the Church, even in the West?

If so, when did that change and the ‘‘Tridentine’’ and ‘‘Proto-Tridentine’’ understanding of the primary purpose of the Mass, come into being?

 

[po18guy]

As Dr. David Anders points out, our Lord used sacrificial language in the upper room. The bread become Body and wine become Blood were “given up” (sacrificed) or “shed for the many” (sacrificed). His next command was “Do this (as often as you do it) in remembrance of Me”

Of course, this “New Testament in My Blood” is a direct covenental update of the Jewish Passover in which the youngest child would ask the father “What is different about this night?” In the Hebrew culture and religion, “remembrance” was much more than a cognitive exercise - it was an entering into the actual event, with God being rendered present. This reflects Catholic belief regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Thinking on this has developed, waxed and waned and reappeared as primary, over the centuries. It was set in stone at Trent due to the heresy of the reformation, which denied the sacrificial nature of the mass - this despite Christ’'s deliberate use of sacrificial language.

 

[Vico]

One of the key objections of traditionalists, and indeed some in the curia at the time, to Mass of Paul VI is that it watered down the notion of sacrifice, which had (it is at least implied) been the central point of the liturgical action since time immemorial. The allegation was that this change in liturgical theology was made to appease Protestants and aid with ecumenism.

…

So, did we have a more balanced and multi-faceted notion of what the Mass represented, more similar to the modern Ordinary Form and its accompanying theology (and, unless I’m misunderstanding the East, the Divine Liturgy too) in some early stage of the Church, even in the West?

…

In the diving Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the people sing: Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise. Just as with the Mass, the Divine Liturgy is Christ’s single oblation being presented again at every Eucharist.

Catechism

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."190

 

[Samuel_Mary]

How would say that ranks in importance alongside the concepts of liturgy as a Eucharistic banquet, the liturgy as Christ present in the assembled faithful, the liturgy as confirming the faithful in their faith by hearing the scriptures and preaching, etc?

 

[Genesis315]

It’s in the Didache from the first century:

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

 

[Dovekin]

Sacrifice was a near universal feature of religion almost as long as we have records. (maybe not in China?) For Judaism and Early Christianity, the destruction of the Temple forced a rethinking of sacrifice that kept the idea prominent in our thinking.

St Anselm, 1000 years later, added some new ideas on sacrifice that proved influential. A renewed discussion of sacrifice shifted much of the discussion to the nature of God and away from human sinfulness. That conversation was still lively at the Reformation.

The oddity today is that sacrifice is no longer a major topic for anyone. There is no experience of non-Christian sacrifices, leaving Christian sacrifice in an almost untenable place. We have to teach about the slaughtering and immolation of bulls in order to understand “the unbloody sacrifice.” Much of the persuasive force is lost with that transition.

 

[po18guy]

D’oh! completely missed the Didache! Notice how it is powerful evidence against sola scriptura? In fact, there is not a single jot of anything written mentioned in the Didache.

 

[po18guy]

Hmmm. The Sacrifice is absolutely primary, as God in Christ commanded it. The rest may follow from it but is subserviant to it. The “banquet” aspect has taken on an exaggerated importance in the last 50-60 years. If one is in a state of mortal sin, then apart from the Sacrifice, there is no reason to attend mass. Therefore, reception of the Eucharist is not the primary purpose of the mass. Although, reception of the Eucharist cannot be separated from the mass - it is integral. We are not. We may separate ourselves from communion, but even then are called to offer the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father.