1. Yes, of course I stand by that. "Repeat" is accurate. So is "reenact". What happens during the Mass is a repetition or reenactment of Calvery. You should know this if you are a Catholic. That you do not is not surprising, given the state of catechesis these days.
2. Do you understand what the structural differences are between the old Mass and the new one? The old Mass itself in its own text speaks of sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech. In other words, according to the old Hebrew sacrificial pattern of the Temple of Jerusalem by a Hebrew priesthood--oblation (Offertory), immolation (Consecration), consummation (Communion). Though the Jewish priesthood disappeared with the destruction of the old Temple, their sacrificial lambs were the prototype for the Agnus Dei of the old Mass--Christ himself established this sacrificial structure as his own on the eve of his death. It has been understood in this way for two thousand years--up until the Bugnini fabrication. Now people like yourself question even this fundamentally Catholic notion. This is because the Novus Ordo has destroyed the pattern so successfully most Catholics do not recognize what has happened. They will attend the new Mass in Latin and think it is the old Mass--even when following in their missals. But by doing away with the sacrificial structure and substituting the commemorative meal structure--the very structure condemned by the Council of Trent--the N.O. has radically shifted the meaning of the Mass. Many liturgists have made these same observations which you apparently find incomprehensible. Read some. Klaus Gamber is not--as you seem to think--an SSPXer. He is a centrist on most issues and has been endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (who wrote the Introduction to his classic text: The Reform of the Roman Liturgy).
3. My so-called "rant" is not a rant at all but an attempt to penetrate the fog of your ignorance. Like a lot of nominal Catholics these days, you "believe" in the Pope, in Rome, in the Holy See, but see no need for any deeper understanding beyond what you are told to think and believe by people who are modernists and have little interest in passing on Catholic Tradition. The truths of revelation mean less to people like you than following the pope . If the Pope tells you to pray with Buddhists, you will do so gladly and willingly--though Buddhists have no God to pray to. That is your mistaken definition of a good Catholic. Normally, this would be a safe point of view. But we are living in very shocking and abnormal times--and this Pope is not always safe to follow.
4. Eucharistic Prayer III alone mentions the intercession of the saints--and only once, whereas the traditional Mass does so throughout its text--and mentions many of the saints by name, starting with the Virgin Mother and St. Michael. Wherever else the saints are mentioned in the new Mass it is not as intercessors for our sinfulness, but as those who will greet us when we reunite with them in Heaven. The entire notion of Propitiation for sin has been suppressed. So too have the prayers of Proper of the Saints. Whereas there were once 200 prayers to the saints in the liturgical year, there are now only 3.
Yes, of course I stand by that. "Repeat" is accurate. So is "reenact". What happens during the Mass is a repetition or reenactment of Calvery. You should know this if you are a Catholic. That you do not is not surprising, given the state of catechesis these days. So then, you repeatedly sacrifice Jesus over and over? how do you answer the Protestant objection that the Sacrifice was finished "once and for all"?
Could it be that we both understand the same thing, but you are nitpicking on language. We re-present the One Sacrifice during our Mass.
Do you understand what the structural differences are between the old Mass and the new one? The old Mass itself in its own text speaks of sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech.
So does the new one.
In other words, according to the old Hebrew sacrificial pattern of the Temple of Jerusalem by a Hebrew priesthood--oblation (Offertory), immolation (Consecration), consummation (Communion).
All are found in the new one. Just because you don't like the words, doesn't mean that these elements are not found there. you miss the forests for the trees. Big time.
Though the Jewish priesthood disappeared with the destruction of the old Temple, their sacrificial lambs were the prototype for the Agnus Dei of the old Mass--Christ himself established this sacrificial structure as his own on the eve of his death.
Duh. How about spare the rants and provide some evidence of the crap you spew?
Now people like yourself question even this fundamentally Catholic notion.
I do no such thing. That is what pisses you off. That I understand the sacrificial nature of the Mass, even though there is no way, according to your dogma, that I should be able to. I am the living disproof of your pet theory.
I know it's shocking, but you have to admit it.
But by doing away with the sacrificial structure and substituting the commemorative meal structure--the very structure condemned by the Council of Trent--the N.O. has radically shifted the meaning of the Mass.
You keep saying, saying, saying. What is your proof? I'm not 7 years old and you are not my teacher. Show me why you say these things. Convince me, don't browbeat.
Eucharistic Prayer III alone mentions the intercession of the saints--and only once, whereas the traditional Mass does so throughout its text--and mentions many of the saints by name, starting with the Virgin Mother and St. Michael.
But they are mentioned. Unless you are willing to argue that this mention is a sine qua non of a valid sacrifice, then you are merely expressing a liturgical preference.
I am a smart guy. I can understand the intercession of the saints wihtout having it repeated 12 times an hour.
SD