What if I told you that one of the most important parts of the Mass was deliberately changed not accidentally, not organically, but because the Church’s understanding of sin and sacrifice on the Cross was being re-emphasized in a completely different way? All one must do is look closely at the words changed in the Offertory, from the Traditional Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo.
I’m going to walk you through the exact words so you can see why this is a problem. Once you see not only what words were deleted and added, but why these sacred words were changed, you’ll see the Offertory like never before.
To get the big picture, we have to go back to the “spirit of Vatican II.” In the years leading up to the council, a new theological movement began to take hold. It emphasized love over sin, mercy over judgment, resurrection over the Cross, and none of those things are wrong in themselves. But you can see in our modern world that the notion of sin has been cast aside. Why focus on the Cross when you can focus on the Resurrection? That’s how the thinking goes.
The new theology movement wanted to de-emphasize atonement and promote a more comprehensive, or more ecumenical, notion which I tend to think denigrates Christ hanging on the Cross. In practice, this led to a shift from propitiatory sacrifice to the broader framework of Paschal Mystery.
Let me break this down for you. Propitiatory sacrifice, that’s a hard word for us in the post-conciliar Church. “Propitious” means favorable.
So a propitiatory sacrifice is one that God sees as favorable or acceptable. We offer Him a sacrifice, and He favorably accepts it. The emphasis is that our sin put us out of favor with God, and this propitiatory sacrifice restores our relationship with Him.
This is a really important word. Why? Because the new Mass has all but done away with the notion of propitiatory sacrifice, which we will return to momentarily.
So in order to replace the words and notions of propitiatory sacrifice, which were heavily emphasized at the Council of Trent and before, the new theologians of the 1960s emphasized a term you’ve all heard: the Paschal Mystery, which is the unified work of Christ’s Passion, death, and Resurrection.
Let me put it plainly. The emphasis became: let’s highlight the totality of Christ’s work especially the Resurrection so we’re not forced to dwell on the part the modern world resists. The Cross, the suffering, the idea of sacrifice for sin. After all, to their way of thinking, why would a loving God require His Son to be tortured like an animal? This God sounds too much like some bloodthirsty Old Testament God, and we don’t want that.
Now of course I’m generalizing the sentiment, but I think this captures the essence of their thinking. Modernist theologians can’t really deny the Cross so they sort of bury it within a broader, more upbeat, less bloody, more welcoming notion of the Paschal Mystery.
To be clear, the Paschal Mystery is something ancient and something beautiful, but it should not replace the propitiatory sacrifice.
So now we come to the late 1960s when this “spirit of Vatican II” wanted to create a new Mass. Instead of focusing on sin, sacrifice, and atonement, the emphasis shifted toward the Paschal Mystery, toward participation, toward a more communal and accessible expression. And there was another goal as well, ecumenism.
The reformers wanted a Mass that would be less offensive, less alien to Protestants. Because if there’s one thing Protestants have rejected, it is the idea that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.
Martin Luther said it had to go. By the way what did Martin Luther say about sacrifice? It’s striking. Here are quotes from his Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520):
“There is a stumbling block in the Mass that must be removed, and this is much greater and the most dangerous of all: it is the common belief that the Mass is a sacrifice which is offered to God. Even the words of the Canon seem to imply this, when they speak of these gifts, these presents, these holy sacrifices, and further on, this offering.”
The Mass, to Martin Luther, was categorically not a sacrifice. In fact, he says, brace yourself:
“The priest offers his Mass as if it were a sacrifice which is the height of perversity.”
That, my friends, is what you call blasphemy. Perversity?
So in the 1526 German Mass Luther eliminated traditional Offertory prayers. This is what Martin Luther wanted.
So what did the reformers do? They didn’t deny sacrifice outright. They did something more subtle. They removed the language that made it unmistakable. They softened it. They reframed it. They shifted the emphasis.
In the Traditional Latin Mass the Offertory is preparing the sacrifice, but in the Novus Ordo it is replaced with something else. A Jewish table blessing called a Berakhah. This is the kind of prayer a Jewish father would say over bread and wine at a meal:
“Blessed are you, Lord, King of the universe…”
It is a blessing over gifts, not a sacrifice, and that is the key shift: from offering a sacrifice to presenting gifts.
Now look at the actual words side by side.
First let’s look at the Traditional Latin Mass. I want you to listen for words about sin and sacrifice:
“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, offenses, 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. Amen.”
So we have spotless host, offer to You, to atone for numberless sins, offenses, and negligence. If this sacrifice is acceptable, if it is propitiatory, then it will profit us as a means for salvation. Pretty clear what the emphasis is.
Now compare with the Novus Ordo. Be sure to listen for the notion of sin and sacrifice:
“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.”
And where is the sin? Where is the sacrifice? In fact all we really see is a Jewish blessing over bread. The emphasis is on human work our cooperation with God’s gift in creation, but not sin and atonement.
Now moving on to the wine.
In the Latin Mass:
“We offer unto Thee O Lord the chalice of salvation, entreating Thy mercy that our offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the sight of Thy divine majesty for our own salvation and that of the whole world.”
You heard it: entreating Thy mercy for our salvation. The Mass is spoken of as a propitiatory sacrifice.
Now listen to what replaced it:
“Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation for through Your goodness we have received the wine we offer You: fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink.”
And there is no entreating mercy because sin and sacrifice is not the point. There is no reference to this being done for our salvation because again the emphasis is now thanksgiving rather than sacrifice for sin.
So why remove that language? Why strip out sin, atonement, sacrifice, and mercy in the sense of forgiveness of sin?
Because the reformers believed that this emphasis was too heavy, too negative, too focused on sin, too focused on the Cross. They wanted to rebalance the Mass toward meal, community, gift, and Resurrection.
The reformers didn’t quote Luther, but they removed the very language Luther objected to.
Perhaps this is the result of the new theologians crafting the Mass. Or perhaps it’s from having Protestant participants in the Consilium that came up with the Mass. I don’t know, perhaps both.
In any event, this is the key: the issue is not just what is missing; it is that the entire category has changed from offering a sacrifice for sin to presenting gifts for a meal.
Now defenders will say a sacrifice is still there, and technically, doctrinally, that is true. But here’s the problem: if you remove the language of sacrifice, if you remove the language of sin, if you remove the language of atonement, then for most people, the reality itself begins to fade.
In the Traditional Latin Mass, by the time the Offertory begins with those beautiful Latin words, “Suscipe, Sancte Pater,” the priest is beginning a sacrifice.
In the Novus Ordo, we are preparing gifts.
And that shift from sacrifice to gift, from sin to celebration, from altar to table was not accidental. It was intentional.
And once that shift happens in the words, it inevitably happens in the minds of the faithful because lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of belief.
If you change how people pray you will change what they believe.
Just look around. Statistically speaking, Catholic fidelity is at an all time low. But at the Traditional Latin Mass all this nonsense goes away. You can experience the Mass the way the Church has intended for centuries.
Next time you’re at Mass whether at the traditional Mass or the new I encourage you to follow along in whatever book is available to you and pay close attention to the Offertory.
In the Traditional Mass you will see proper reverence for Christ’s Passion on the Cross. And if you’re at the new Mass hopefully you’ll see, perhaps for the first time, a conspicuous absence of sin and sacrifice.
And perhaps you will conclude: the Father deserves more than our gratitude and our gift of bread and wine. He deserves the spotless Host or one could say the Immaculate Victim.
The Father deserves the offering of His beloved Son and nothing less.