Different rites can all have a "sacrificial nature," but they are not the same rite. The Malabar rite and the Russian Orthodox rite can both express a sacrificial nature, but they're not the same rite, they're different rites. The immemorial Latin Mass and the New Mass may (or may not) both express a sacrificial nature, but they are different rites. That is what Sippo says.
Besides which, "words of the prayers" are not "incidentals" to a sacrament. They ARE the sacrament. The form of the sacrament is defined by the words. If you and Sippo and others believe that "words of the prayers" are "incidental" to the Mass, then I guess that explains everything that needs to be understood.
This is Sippo's contention that I cannot find fault with.
" There are several different compositions for the words of institution in the Latin Rite, but the least common denominators among them are the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood.” These words recited by a priest over the appropriate matter with the intention of confecting the sacrament are sufficient in themselves to validly confect the Holy Eucharist. The overtly sacramental terminology that the Integrists are concerned about is not required to validly confect the Mass. The use of such terminology is only licit in the Mass when it appears in an approved liturgical usage. As such, the presence or absence of such terminology does not in and of itself affect either the liciety or validity of a Mass.
If you and Sippo and others believe that "words of the prayers" are "incidental" to the Mass, then I guess that explains everything that needs to be understood.
I would only be concerned about the words that are needed to be said to consecrate the bread and wine. It is not necessary, or possible, that every tenet of the faith be reflected in the prayers of the mass.