[Maximilian]

Sippo manages to beat around the bush, throw in a few ad hominem insults and make some irrelevant comments, but the one thing that he does not manage to do is the thing that he said he would do at the outset: demonstrate that Eucharistic Prayer II has any language referring to sacrifice. It does not.

In fact, his first and apparently most significant point is that the Mass really isn't about "sacrifice" anyway. Instead it's a recreation of an Old Testament "Todah." He makes his opponents' point for them. He says that he's going to prove that EPII has language of sacrifice, but then instead he claims that it really doesn't matter whether it does or not because the Mass really isn't a sacrifice.

In the meantime, where does Good Friday fit into all of this? What about the sacrifice on the Cross? Does that have some role in the New Mass? Apparently not, according to Sippo.

Thank you, Mr. Sippo for proving the point better than any "integrist" could ever do. The New Mass is a different Mass from the "Mass of all times." Search the article for the terms "Good Friday" (or just Friday), "Cross," "Passion," "Unbloody." Each one of these terms will return zero hits. The entire concept of what the Mass represents: "an unbloody reenactment of Christ's passion and death on the Cross" no longer exists in the New Mass. Now it is a reenactment of a "Todah." Whatever. Just don't pretend it's the same Mass.

[Catholicguy]

Paul VI taught differently. So does the Catholic Catechism. The Living Magisterium teaches it is a sacrifice.

I understand schismatics teach in opposition to the Living Magisterium but their "teaching" carries precisely the same weight as does "teaching" issuing from the Anglicans, the Lutherans, or, for that matter, the Rastafarians.