Replies

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.

I am not at all nit-picking--these are essential differences between Protestants and Catholics which the New Church glosses over in an exaggerated attempt at ecumenism. This is why traditionalists firmly believe the Novus Ordo is not only deficient, but dangerous to the faith.

The Council of Trent teaches that Christ Himself is truly Present after the Consecration and that the Sacred Host is immolated and offered up to the Father in sacrifice. Since this is truly Christ Himself, and not just a symbolic presence as Protestants believe, the offering is a true reenactment of the Cross of Calvery, an unbloody sacrifice:

"And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For THE VICTIM IS ONE AND THE SAME, the same NOW offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the MANNER ALONE OF OFFERING BEING DIFFERENT. The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one, so far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not yet fully purified." (Council of Trent, 22nd Session)

Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence. Christ's presence is virtual only, in the assembly and in the Scripture readings--precisely the emphasis given in the Novus Ordo. The Protestant ritual is a memorial meal, a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, a looking-back on what happened two thousand years ago once and for all. Nothing is immolated. There is, in fact, no altar of immolation, no priesthood to do the immolating, no sacrifice per se. In imitation of this, the Novus Ordo calls the priest a "presider" and emphasizes the virtual presence of Christ--ignoring His Real Presence, suppressing, in fact, this central Catholic dogma.

You claim the sacrificial structure has not been destroyed. But Bugnini started where Luther began--by tossing out the Offertory and substituting a prayer of thanks. There is no Offertory in the new Mass--none, zilch. The "Presentation of the gifts" make no allusion to our sinfulness or to the nature of the sacrifice.

As for your being "a smart guy"--I don't think so. You apparently don't understand the fundamental meanings behind the Mass which all traditional Catholics commonly appreciate. You assume the Novus Ordo is Catholic--since you've been brought up to believe it is. But it is theologically Protestant--and just barely valid as a Mass. It supports none of the ancient teachings about the Real Presence, about His unbloody sacrifice, about the need for propitiation for our sins. These are fundamental Catholic doctrines--which you seem to think are "rants" or "pet theories" on my part, rather than the perennial teachings of the Church. You need to read the Council of Trent.