Sad to see this odd statement in that talk, from someone who should know better:

"At the beginning of the Church and for the first three centuries, the liturgy was truly a “liturgy,” that is, the action of the people (laos – people – is among the etymological components of the word leitourgia)."

Yes, indeed - laos is among the components of the word, along with "ergon" or "work". Because "liturgy" in ancient Greece was an action taken at personal expense, on behalf of the people. The Catechism describes why this term was taken up by the Church:

“The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the people of God in “the work of God.” Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.” (CCC 1069)

It is pretty elementary to understand that "laos" in this word refers to who the work is being done for/on behalf of; not who is doing the work. By definition, the rich citizen performing Liturgy in ancient Greece, and later Christ, are performing work/providing services that "the people" cannot on their own. All the "action of the people" in the world does nothing to make something a liturgy. Unless we are going Pelagian all of a sudden :)

The liturgy IS the "work of God", not the action of the people. The people of God merely participate, each according to his or her own lay or clerical state and liturgical role. It is bizarre to see Cantalamessa saying that liturgy IS the action of the people. Just an elementary, but critical, mistake.

If you were to observe an NO Mass in Latin with just a single server, at a side altar in, say, St Peter's, I do not think that it would seem much different from a 1570... Low Mass. It would have more audible parts, you might think the beginning and the end somewhat truncated, a reduction in the number of signs of the cross over the paten and chalice ... Noticeable perhaps that when the priest says "Orate fratres .. " he completes it and visibly addresses it to the server.
What has changed is that the Roman Missal now concentrates on what to do when there is a congregation. The 1570 just copies out the rubrics for the missa privata of .a curial official who has no pastoral responsibilities. It has nothing to say about the congregation.
The Orthodox, and Catholics using those rites, have never had Low Mass. All their liturgies involve the congregation, and take place in part outside the iconostasis, outside the sanctuary.

davido - yes, indeed! Whenever I give talks for parishes or formation, I say: "A common post-conciliar misunderstanding of the two words "work" and "people" is that the Liturgy is the "work of the people" - but this error has mostly disappeared from the Catholic conversation and is more often seen today in Protestant circles." Cantalamessa proves me too optimistic...

Having read the rest of his sermon: https://www.cantalamessa.org/?p=4080&lang=en

I'd, by charitably stretching, say that he is trying to just rehash the basic narrative that the people had a more active role earlier in the church, and that clericalism usurped that proper role over the centuries, until corrected by 20th-century reforms. And he is (charitably read) trying to say that good, or authentic liturgy should have a better balance between lay and clerical participation since it is an action of the whole Christ, head and members. But that became garbled by poor choice of words, and an elementary misunderstanding of the etymology of "leitourgia." And to say "true liturgy" is also misleading, since a private Mass with no people present is still valid and part of the true liturgy. Regardless, it is disheartening to think that garbled language and false etymology are being preached in the Vatican - presumably to sympathetic ears. He couldn't get away with that in the liturgy courses I've taken...

He also brings out this tired trope:

"For centuries, the central part of the Mass, known as the Canon or Anaphora, was pronounced by the priest in a low voice, in Latin, behind a curtain or a wall (a temple within a temple!), out of the sight and hearing of the people. The celebrant only raised his voice at the final words of the Canon: “Per omnia saecula saeculorum,” and the people replied, “Amen!” to what they hadn’t heard, let alone understood."

Leaving aside his strange sweeping architectural statement (if all churches had wall-like rood screens in all times and places, one wonders how the elevation managed to be such a critical VISUAL moment in the Mass in so many times and places, often extended by special elevation music. He's got his liturgical criticisms garbled too! One of the chief complaints of the liturgical movement was the common practice of making a visual communion by witnessing the elevation, but not actually receiving). Anyway, this also fails the common sense test - anyone with even the barest, most stereotypical Monty Python-esque level of ignorant medieval peasant knowledge of the Mass knew at least the basics of what was happening at the canon, whether or not they could hear it. Those with hand missals were even more precisely on track. The same way we moderns know exactly what is happening at the wedding vows, even if the mic battery runs out or the couple chooses to exchange vows in private whispers. You have to wonder - does Cantalamessa conceive of all people of the past as a homogeneous group, never discussing or learning anything about the Mass outside of the liturgy itself? So that they really had no idea what was happening in the secret walled-off inner temple, and no way of finding out if they were curious? And they just stood there saying "Amen" to things they did not remotely understand? It takes a very active imagination to come up with stuff like this.

Old ideas die a slow death...Cantalamessa proves it. FYI....many in Rome are tired of hearing him. Direct knowledge from friends who live and work in the Church in Rome.

It has nothing to say about the congregation.

Here's this worn out canard, again.

It doesn't say anything about the congregation because it regulates no more than is absolutely necessary. To say that ancient rubrics were democratic and later rubrics were entirely aristocratic is to impose our narrow, modern understanding on texts.

Hawkins,

Surely a priest who is offering a public Mass, and is, at that point, facing away from the altar and the tabernacle and the crucifix, can figure out how loud his voice needs to be. Most can even figure out that when the choir is singing something at that point the voice used doesn't need to be amplified by a microphone so as to compete with (or overcome) the choir.

There's no problem here to solve.

Certainly the action as specified and the meaning of the words is clear (to me, as apparently to you), but Fortescue describes how the missal rubric was interpreted :

Facing them he stretches out the hands and joins them again, as at the Dominus vobiscum. Meanwhile he says Orate fratres in an audible voice. He turns back to the altar, by his left side (completing the circle), while he continues, ut meum ac vestrurn sacrificiuin etc., in a low voice.

That is what I remember as the normal practice, and what Cantalamessa would have been taught to do. And woe betide any seminarian or parochial vicar who did not follow these instructions with absolute robotic precision.

Charles,

I must be misreading your post. You know perfectly well that the Church has had more than these Councils, so what other point were you raising?

clergy and people do not change the practices with which they are familiar

Alas not so. After VII they, particularly clergy, rejected the practices with which they were familiar, because they were told to think about them. Unfortunately they had no prior training in liturgy (as opposed to rubrics) and received none then other than from the sellers of musical snake oil. Thinking about liturgy had been discouraged. As Fortescue said (privately)

"To them it is not the history nor the development of rites that matter a bit, it is the latest decision of the Congregation of Rites. These decisions are always made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, ..."

When priests were told to think, they could see much "disgusting nonsense" but had no firm basis for doing better.
In support of my opinion I offer the example I have already given, of the Orate fratres - the priest turns to the people - WHY, he makes a request - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS TEXT = but he does not make the whole request audible - WHY. Once you have asked the questions it becomes evident that the customary procedure is quite literally "disgusting nonsense"
NB I am not claiming DDWDS is better than the old SCR, nor that the Consilium was much better either.

Mark,

Surely, you must be mistaken, for His Holiness tells us that the Ordo of Paul VI is the unique expression of......