How is the NO "not sacrificial"?

[stmaria]

I think we’ve had this debate before. Jesus didn’t say “pro multis” because he wasn’t speaking latin. That being said, the Church has determined that the words “pro multis” are to be used. They should have been translated as for many. They were not. That is being corrected. Fortunately, the meaning was intended to be the same and the Sacrament is still valid.

Intended to be the same? This could be corrected so easily. Something else I can’t understand is why did the Consilium change the words of Consecration to resemble those of Luther?

Luther removed “The Mystery of Faith” and so did the reformers.
Luther added “which is given up for You” and so did the reformers.
Luther changed “For you and for many” and so did the reformers.

Luther’s Catechism
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

It can’t be just a coincidence. Could the quote from Anniblae Bugnin give us the answer.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

 

[Chatter163]

Though I pay no attention to those who claim that the NO is invalid, the point that the sacrificial nature of the Mass is downplayed is a valid one.

As has been stated here, many parishes most frequently use the second EP, in which there is only the merest reference to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. This accounts for much of the perception. However, in general the Mass texts, particularly the offertory prayers, are far less explicit on the sacrificial theme than their pre-VII counterparts. It is reminiscent of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in that it is not what is there that is objectionable; it is what is NOT there. To put it another way, it is about what WAS there and then removed–THAT is the basis of the complaint.

One wonders why the prayers had developed and remained in place for centuries, then in one fell swoop were brushed aside. This causes one to wonder WHY they were brushed aside, as if the traditional prayers themselves were objectionable.

 

[Sure]

Intended to be the same? This could be corrected so easily. Something else I can’t understand is why did the Consilium change the words of Consecration to resemble those of Luther?

Luther removed “The Mystery of Faith” and so did the reformers.
Luther added “which is given up for You” and so did the reformers.
Luther changed “For you and for many” and so did the reformers.

Luther’s Catechism
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

It can’t be just a coincidence. Could the quote from Anniblae Bugnin give us the answer.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

Or not. The words remain pro multis so I’m not really sure what your complaint is???

 

[sphilomena]

Though I pay no attention to those who claim that the NO is invalid, the point that the sacrificial nature of the Mass is downplayed is a valid one.
As has been stated here, many parishes most frequently use the second EP, in which there is only the merest reference to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. This accounts for much of the perception. However, in general the Mass texts, particularly the offertory prayers, are far less explicit on the sacrificial theme than their pre-VII counterparts. It is reminiscent of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in that it is not what is there that is objectionable; it is what is NOT there. To put it another way, it is about what WAS there and then removed–THAT is the basis of the complaint.

One wonders why the prayers had developed and remained in place for centuries, then in one fell swoop were brushed aside. This causes one to wonder WHY they were brushed aside, as if the traditional prayers themselves were objectionable.

Exactly. The problem may not be with official Church teaching, but with those whose voices are most often heard. The sacrificial nature of the Mass is definitely downplayed. One cannot help but wonder about the role played by the Protestants in formulating the NO with Bugnini, and the desire to appear ecumenical in our worship.

 

[stmaria]

Or not. The words remain pro multis so I’m not really sure what your complaint is???

But the translation is wrong in all the vernaculars and nothing has been done about it for over 40 years. The words “Mystery of Faith” given to the apostles by Christ have been removed.

 

[AJV]

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

No for the simple reason that he didn’t say it.

 

[AJV]

However, in general the Mass texts, particularly the offertory prayers, are far less explicit on the sacrificial theme than their pre-VII counterparts. It is reminiscent of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in that it is not what is there that is objectionable; it is what is NOT there. To put it another way, it is about what WAS there and then removed–THAT is the basis of the complaint.

One wonders why the prayers had developed and remained in place for centuries, then in one fell swoop were brushed aside. This causes one to wonder WHY they were brushed aside, as if the traditional prayers themselves were objectionable.

Certainly the revisers did not wish to have sacrificial language in the Offertory. Their idea was that the terms of the Offertory - which are highly proleptic and therefore only explained by reference to what they become - were unsuitable for the Offertory, duplicated the Canon - and turned it into a “Minor Canon”. And some stuff about “integrity and clearness of the liturgical action” or somesuch that is still around today. Rather, from the first drafts of 1964, the Offertory was changed into a Preparation of gifts- the “Blessed are you” texts were composed later- the first ones were based on the Didache. The only prayer successfully retained was “In spiritu humilitatis” which does not exactly make an anticipatory oblation. Veni Sanctificator was removed in view of the epiclesis particularly in the new Eucharistic Prayers.

 

[kleary]

I beg to differ, the Catholic teaching is the same and the same sacrifice is offered in the NOM, the TLM or any rite of the Church- the same sacrifice that Christ accomplished on the Cross.

The “official teaching” of the Church is. The “official liturgy” (Novus Ordo with Eucharistic prayer #2) can be taken by those in the pew as no. This is because “Eucharistic Prayer #2” is the same as in the Anglican Series 3 communion service- and they do not believe in the sacrificial nature.

Also, the removal of the offertory prayers is a key sign. With the offertory prayers the priest prays in anticipation of the sacrifice he is about to offer to God. It is unmistakable. Luther himself knew this that is why he abolished it.

Ken

 

[AJV]

This is because “Eucharistic Prayer #2” is the same as in the Anglican Series 3 communion service- and they do not believe in the sacrificial nature.

Ken

Sorry, but it isn’t. And definitely not the parts after the Anamesis which contain the oblationary language. Both are based on Hippolytus though.

But if you would like to demonstrate how both are same, leading to doctrinal difficulty in the sacrificial nature, I’m all ears.

I don’t mean to be disparaging, but have you read the Series 3 Communion service?

 

[lak611]

The “official teaching” of the Church is. The “official liturgy” (Novus Ordo with Eucharistic prayer #2) can be taken by those in the pew as no. This is because “Eucharistic Prayer #2” is the same as in the Anglican Series 3 communion service- and they do not believe in the sacrificial nature.

Ken

The problem with any misunderstandings by Catholics about the sacrifiicial nature of the Mass is poor catechesis. We need to stop worrying about what the Anglicans teach or what prayers they use in their services and start better catechism of Catholics.

 

[kleary]

The problem with any misunderstandings by Catholics about the sacrifiicial nature of the Mass is poor catechesis. We need to stop worrying about what the Anglicans teach or what prayers they use in their services and start better catechism of Catholics.

The problem is the official public prayer of the Church- it must agree with official teaching unambigously, as not to be misunderstood. Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi- the way we worship shows what we believe.

Remove the sacrificial language- it shows no sacrifice, it invites trouble, it invites heretics to attend and receive believing differently than what is officially taught.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Sorry, but it isn’t. And definitely not the parts after the Anamesis which contain the oblationary language. Both are based on Hippolytus though.

But if you would like to demonstrate how both are same, leading to doctrinal difficulty in the sacrificial nature, I’m all ears.

I don’t mean to be disparaging, but have you read the Series 3 Communion service?

I may be wrong. It is the NOM itself that looks like the Anglican Series 3 Communion service. And I have to go dig for the book that has an Anglican “Bishop” there saying it is now ok to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church as long as Eucharistic Prayer #2 is used.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Sorry, but it isn’t. And definitely not the parts after the Anamesis which contain the oblationary language. Both are based on Hippolytus though.

But if you would like to demonstrate how both are same, leading to doctrinal difficulty in the sacrificial nature, I’m all ears.

I don’t mean to be disparaging, but have you read the Series 3 Communion service?

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972)

 

[lak611]

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972)

Once again, why should we Catholics care what the Anglicans are doing or copying from us? We need to concentrate on catechesis of our own people.

 

[AJV]

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972)

Very little difference according him? All I can say is: WOW. Looking at the Series III, I present that the “very little difference” is that the Anglican "brings before (the Father) [NOTE: not offers] this bread and this cup [As opposed ot the Bread of Life and Cup of Salvation] and prays that he might accept “our duty and service, a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” (which is not found in the NO) ". It also omits the mention of the BVM and saints and the dead as it is found in the NO. Ergo the “very little difference” is actually “major theological difference”

 

[AJV]

But the translation is wrong in all the vernaculars and nothing has been done about it for over 40 years. The words “Mystery of Faith” given to the apostles by Christ have been removed.

Is this by any chance based on Cum Marthae?

 

[AJV]

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972)

I contacted Simon Kershaw at the Anglican liturgical library and he kindly agreed to put Series 3 Holy Communion order online. You can read it here.