I en annen post på denne bloggen har det begynt en diskusjon om folkets forbønner i messen; en person har kritisert disse forbønnene, mens andre har kritisert en slik holdning.
Denne uenigheten bunner nok i ganske kompliserte argumenter om hva messen egentlig er, og om det skjedde en tydelig vektforskyvning i messen ved reformen i 1970. Er messen først og fremst at presten bærer fram Kristi offer, og at lekfolket (sekundært) gjør dette sammen med presten. Eller er messen primært en gjentakelse av det første nattverdmåltidet av hele Guds folk, der presten (sekundært) har noen egne oppgaver. Et brev fra SSPX (pdf-fil) til pave Johannes Paul II i 2001 prøver å beskrive problemet:
30. As we have indicated, the gathering of the community is a “sacrament” with a certain power, and not merely a symbol. By “[making] themselves into a worshipping community” (Institutio Generalis §24) the assembly of the faithful make the Lord really present: “Then the priest, by his greeting, reminds the assembled people that the Lord is present among them. This greeting and the people’s reply express the mystery of the Church formally assembled” (IG §28). From the outset, therefore, the emphasis is on the Lord’s spiritual presence, and this presence will dominate the ceremony. Having devalued the presence of Christ the Victim which is brought about transubstantially through the action of the sacred minister, the new missal glorifies the spiritual presence of the Lord wrought through the ministry of the priest and people. As for the celebrant who is offering the Eucharist, he must simply “serve God and the people with dignity and humility” in order to “make the faithful realize the presence of the living Christ” (IG §60). …
32. The “Eucharistic liturgy” of the new missal patently shows how the ministerial priesthood has been pushed aside in favor of the communal action of the assembly. The sacrificial offering is only seen through the prism of the common priesthood of the faithful, a novelty which threatens equally the character of the ministerial priesthood and the sacramental power of the sacrifice. The Church has always distinguished the unbloody immolation brought about by the consecration, from the sacrificial offering (oblation in this limited sense) made by the participants through which they unite themselves to the sacramental oblation accomplished by Christ the Priest in the person of His minister. Only the unbloody immolation at the consecration, “performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful,” belongs to the category of sacrament: the action of Christ works ex opere operato [in virtue of the action performed]. On the other hand, the oblation in the restricted sense of the word works ex opere operantis [in virtue of the one performing the actions]: the participation of the faithful consists in their uniting themselves “by virtue of their intention” to the sacramental offering that Christ the Priest makes of Himself to His Father in the person of His minister. The new missal omits this distinction and ignores systematically the specifically sacramental action of the minister who alone acts by virtue of Christ the Priest.
47. A new understanding of the Mass then appears; it is less an application of the merits of Redemption and more a liturgy of the saved – the liturgy of a “people your Son has gained for you (populus acquisitionis tuae)” (Eucharistic Prayer III). Rather than being an action whereby the priest in persona Christi applies the merits and satisfactions won by Christ in His redemptive sacrifice, the Mass is the action of a people—“the sacred assembly, a chosen race, a royal priesthood” (IG §62)—who celebrate with thanksgiving a Redemption already released in full (IG §54).