The Work of Human Hands, Part III
#11
Why don't you be like a true missionary and explain to me one, just one, doctrinal deficiency of the New Mass?
Reply
#12
The aspect of Sacrifice is weak in the New Mass. That is my sole problem with it. The Tridentine Mass is not free from criticism either however. Canon, For the Living: "[W]e offer, or who offer up to Thee this Sacrifice of praise...". I am looking through the TM missal and don't see where it says that this sacrifice is that same as that of calvary. As the priest blessed the unconsecrated host, he prays: "Humbly we pray Thee, O God, to make this same offering wholly blessed, to consecrate it and approve it, making it reasonable and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of They dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ." It very much seems to say that the sacrifice must be blessed before it becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus, implying that the bread and wine are merely a "Sacrifice of Praise". I really woud like an answer for this, instead of a library of books
Reply
#13
Mr. Eskew , when I get the time tonight I am going to read that whole article from the SSPX you gave me and let you know what I think. Hopefully by then you will have an explanantion for the lack of clarity (to say the least) of the Offetory from the TM. I truly want to find a good answer to my objection. Thanks
Reply
#14
I just read over the Tridentine missal and it's emphasis on a sacrifice of atonement is continuous. Thinking back the Novus Ordo I was at early this morning, sacrifice is only mentioned twice (or is it three times??), and it is offered for the "glory of Gpd's name and our good", without mentioning eternal life, sin, and such. So yes, it is weak. During the Offering of Bread and Wine, the TM missal it says "may our sacrifice be so offered this day in Thy sight as to be pleasing", although he had already offered the "Host" as a sacrifice. Right before the Lavabo, it mentions "this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of thy holy Name." Therefore that tends to answer my objection about the vagueness of this missal, although it would be better if it was clear about when the sacrifice was offered. Nevertheless, I see nowhere where it says this sacrifice is the very same as that on Calvary. So is it's theology incomplete??
Reply
#15
(11-18-2011, 08:58 PM)aquinasg Wrote: Nevertheless, I see nowhere where it says this sacrifice is the very same as that on Calvary. So is it's theology incomplete??

It is theologically not the same as the Catholic Mass.

The Catholic Mass has been defined by the Church as the Sacrifice of Calvary offered for the propitiation and atonement of sin. (Council of Trent)

The Novus Ordo Missae never claims to be the Sacrifice of Calvary--that is, it never claims to be a sacrifice of propitiation and atonement for sin. Instead, it refers to itself as a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving."

It is true that there may be an allusion to it in one or two of the propers during the liturgical year, and the "Agnus Dei" is often said to be a reference to the propitiatory nature of the Mass, but the fact of the matter is that there is no clear statement from the Novus Ordo Missae in which it actually claims to be, what the Catholic Church has defined as, the Catholic Mass. Many Protestants include the "Agnus Dei" and similar prayers in their liturgies, too, but they deny that their offering is propitiatory. Because of these and other challenges, the Holy Ghost has seen fit to inspire the Catholic Church to authoritatively define the true meaning of the Mass within the Mass.  

Sure, the Catholic Mass is an offering of praise and thanksgiving in addition to being a propitiatory sacrifice, but it is not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; it is much, much more than that, as the Church has already declared.

And this removal of the definition of the very purpose of the Mass was deliberate. In fact, all mention of it was systematically removed from the liturgy.

The denial that the Mass was a sacrifice offered in reparation for sin was a tragic error of the heretics over four hundred years ago. The Catholic Church condemned this heresy at the great Council of Trent, which decreed: “If anyone should say that the Mass is just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not propitiatory…anathema sit.”

About the time the new liturgy was published (1969), men who had been influential experts at Vatican II were busy publishing a series of books on the changes that were to take place in the Church. The series was appropriately entitled “Concilium” (The Council). Its volume on the liturgical reform featured an article by a Benedictine, Kilian McDonnell, entitled “Calvin’s Conception of the Liturgy and the Future of the Roman Catholic Liturgy”. After criticizing the ancient Latin liturgy of the Church and praising the liturgical inventions of the heretic John Calvin, the Benedictine priest makes this bold prediction about the Catholic Liturgy of the future: “The norm for the future within Catholicism will be the norm Calvin enunciated: freedom within form.” It seems very likely that the future Catholic liturgy is being patterned after John Calvin’s ideas – the same Calvin who taught that the Holy Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ’s spiritual presence in the congregation.

Again, in the Intervention of 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani predicted with lamentable accuracy that “the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.”

Whether or not it is valid is not the question here. Whether or not it is even Catholic to begin with is the real question.
Reply
#16
If it's not Catholic, it's not valid. Nowever, it does mention the Real Presence, in saying "may they become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ". And in saying "Lord, I am not worthy to receive YOU"; this is more specific than the generic "under my roof" of the TM. The intentions of the Modernists is beside the point. Paul VI believed in the true nature of the mass, declared in Vatican II's Constitution in the Liturgy (##2,7), Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei on the Eucharist, the sections on the Eucharist in his Solemn Profession of Faith (published in 1968, the same year as the first post-conciliar ordination rite), and Vatican II’s Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests (#2). Paul VI was a weak and poor administrator, but not a heretic, and it is his authority which is behind the Novus Ordo

And didn't answer my question: why doesn't the TM ever state that this sacrifice is the same as that of Calvary, not a new sacrifice?
Reply
#17
(11-19-2011, 04:37 PM)aquinasg Wrote: If it's not Catholic, it's not valid.

You are making the claim that there is no such thing as valid, non-Catholic liturgy?

Quote: Nowever, it does mention the Real Presence, in saying "may they become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ". And in saying "Lord, I am not worthy to receive YOU"; this is more specific than the generic "under my roof" of the TM. The intentions of the Modernists is beside the point. Paul VI believed in the true nature of the mass, declared in Vatican II's Constitution in the Liturgy (##2,7), Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei on the Eucharist, the sections on the Eucharist in his Solemn Profession of Faith (published in 1968, the same year as the first post-conciliar ordination rite), and Vatican II’s Decree on the Life and Ministry of Priests (#2). Paul VI was a weak and poor administrator, but not a heretic, and it is his authority which is behind the Novus Ordo

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

Quote:And didn't answer my question: why doesn't the TM ever state that this sacrifice is the same as that of Calvary, not a new sacrifice?

You never asked me any question. My former post was my first post in this thread.
Reply
#18
You had responded to my other post without answering my basic question.

And if a Mass is valid, it must be Catholic. Does it express all Catholic doctrines? No, but it doesn't have to. If the face of modernism, Paul VI was wrong to promulgate the Novus Ordo, but he had ecumenical concerns primarily in mind I think; he felt all the pomp of the TM was so culturally dissimilar to the Protestands services, that more may be converted if they felt very much at home at mass, with of course, understanding the Mass still with their new found Catholic ideas. But again, the Tridentine Mass was promulgated in the face of the Reformation. Reformers believed that the Mass was blasphemy because it was talking the place of the "one and only" sacrifice of Calvary. I looked over the TM missal yesterday, and nowhere does it say that this is the same sacrifice as that on Calvary. All its numerous prayers of offering could so easily be interpreted to mean a new sacrifice. So don't call the Novus Ordo non-Catholic and then use a double standard. I went to the Novus Ordo tonight and was very much at home. I like both Mass. Will you deride Eastern Catholics for standing throughout mass? If not, why not? Don't be bigots please
Reply
#19
(11-20-2011, 12:55 AM)aquinasg Wrote: You had responded to my other post without answering my basic question.

Please provide proof with a link that links to one of my posts to you from this thread.

Quote:And if a Mass is valid, it must be Catholic.

You're simply saying the same thing over and over again and not listening. I'm sorry but I simply don't have time to debate this issue with someone whose mind is already made up and who doesn't listen.

Pax tecum.
Reply
#20
I am sorry. What am I missing here?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)