[SoothingDave]

In the N.O. you have a valid Consecration, celebrated by a validly ordained priest, but this is done not to offer a present unbloody sacrifice of Christ Himself to the Father so much as to commemorate at a memorial meal the Sacrifice that had already happened

It's funny, cause I was raised post-Vatican II, in the NO Mass, and the references to it being a sacrifice or an offering are clear to me. They are in English, even.

How can you miss them?

SD

[ultima ratio]

There is a huge difference in the way the concept of sacrifice is used. In classic theology there is a destruction--an immolation of a victim--in other words, a repeat of the original sacrifice, over and over, for as many times as there are Masses. In the new theology, there is no destruction and the death of Christ is merely memorialized. In the first case, the sacrifice is PRESENT and offered to the Father; in the second case, the sacrifice is a historical reference that is being commemorated.

One of the tricks of modernism has been to take a term--"Eucharist", "sacrament", "sacrifice"--and to alter its meaning in subtle ways that render the term novel and untraditional.

Not only does the N.O., for instance, use the term "sacrifice" differently from Catholic usage in the past, but it has dismantled the ancient tripartite sacrificial structure of the Mass as well--oblation (Offertory); immolation (Consecration) and consummation (Communion) in favor of the commemorative meal structure. This is why the Jewish prayer before meals was substituted for the Offertory and why the assembly itself is the prime focus of the priest and not the sacrifice to God the Father.