If someone says the Eucharist is not valid in the NO

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
…how do you reply? I prefer the traditional Mass and I disagree with some changes in the Novus Ordo (like removing altar rails, etc) - and the TLM seems more reverent to me… but I still consider the Novus Ordo to be valid and to have a valid Eucharist. If another traditionalist person tells you that the NO doesn’t have the Eucharist, - what do you say, what reasons would you give that it is valid?

I think Archbishop Lefebvre said that sometimes in the NO there is no Consecration because the priest might not believe in the Real Presence or transubstantiation and the wording doesn’t make it as clear as the TLM. (in the TLM, the wording is very clear). However it seems to me that today, mostly all priests do believe in the Real Presence. Has the situation changed?

thank you 🙂
 
Anyone who claims that the Eucharist is not valid in the NO is not in union w/ the Magisterium. It’s that simple
 
I have replied like this: “You are wrong, and appear to be following some false teaching that is going to eventually put your soul in jeopardy. If you tell me what you think and why, we can disucss why it is wrong. Ball is in your court.” This makes them if they are honest, go back and research not only what they were told and why, with the result that they find out the truth for themselves.
 
Marie5890 said:
Anyone who claims that the Eucharist is not valid in the NO is not in union w/ the Magisterium. It’s that simple
Click to expand...
Greetings Marie5890,

I could not have said it any better.

Greetings Monica4316,

Seems like some reading about Eucharist is in order. The answers are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit
 
TheDoctor said:
I have replied like this: “You are wrong, and appear to be following some false teaching that is going to eventually put your soul in jeopardy. If you tell me what you think and why, we can disucss why it is wrong. Ball is in your court.” This makes them if they are honest, go back and research not only what they were told and why, with the result that they find out the truth for themselves.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply TheDoctor. I find myself more and more frustrated (and I am losing patience as a result) when people are simply wrong in their understanding of Catholic teaching but they dont know it. or arent honest about it.

I still struggle to find a way to be charitable in handling ignorance. It’s a real struggle, too. 😊
 
Monica4316 said:
…how do you reply? I prefer the traditional Mass and I disagree with some changes in the Novus Ordo (like removing altar rails, etc) - and the TLM seems more reverent to me… but I still consider the Novus Ordo to be valid and to have a valid Eucharist. If another traditionalist person tells you that the NO doesn’t have the Eucharist, - what do you say, what reasons would you give that it is valid?
Click to expand...
I think you would need to be quite specific in your discussion.

Archbishop Lefebrve qualified his statements in that respect, and focused on abuses in the form of celebrating the mass and in training or belief of priests. You should be very clear in any such discussion what, precisely you are debating.

There is no point trying to defend a mass done improperly, and there is no point arguing about whether many masses were celebrated improperly since the implementation of the N.O…
 
It is irrelevant what any individual or number of individuals might say or proclaim. God would not allow tens - no, hundreds - of millions of his people be guilty, however unwittenly, of idolatory, which adoration of a false eucharist would be.

The Holy Spirit may take the form of a dove, but He’s got teeth!
 
TheDoctor said:
True, but to
  • instruct the ignorant
  • bear wrongs patiently
  • forgive others willingly
    are works of mercy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps when dealing with true ignorance that is open to accepting Truth when it is revealed, but the OP is asking about dealing with “traditionalists” who say such a thing. These people know exactly what and why they say what they say.
 
=Monica4316;8409516]…how do you reply? I prefer the traditional Mass and I disagree with some changes in the Novus Ordo (like removing altar rails, etc) - and the TLM seems more reverent to me… but I still consider the Novus Ordo to be valid and to have a valid Eucharist. If another traditionalist person tells you that the NO doesn’t have the Eucharist, - what do you say, what reasons would you give that it is valid?
Click to expand...
I think Archbishop Lefebvre said that sometimes in the NO there is no Consecration because the priest might not believe in the Real Presence or transubstantiation and the wording doesn’t make it as clear as the TLM. (in the TLM, the wording is very clear). However it seems to me that today, mostly all priests do believe in the Real Presence. Has the situation changed?
Click to expand...
thank you 🙂
Click to expand...
Such a person is ignorant of the truth of ones GRAVE Moral obligation to accept the teachings of the Church and our Pope. The Pius Xth folks hold these positions in serious error. I doubt that anything anyone including GOD Himself tells them is going to change there opinions. They calim to know more and or know better than the Pope, the church- fathers and the Bible; so just pray for them and don’t buy into there lack of understsanding and obstainenace as they are not from God.

God Bless,
Pat
 
Monica4316 said:
and the TLM seems more reverent to me
Click to expand...
It has been said here time and time again that reverence is an interior disposition, not something depending upon external actions.

A servant may kowtow to his lord, not daring to raise his eyes from the ground but if he is wishing in his heart that the king slip, fall and break his neck then he is not truly reverent.
 
Thank you for the replies…

well I do see the TLM as being more reverent, but I don’t want to argue that here. 🙂

I am wondering though, what particular arguments could I use to defend the position that the Eucharist is valid in the NO? For example, a while ago I heard about a Eucharistic miracle that happened, and the Eucharist was consecrated in the NO Mass. Also, there is the doctrine that as long as a validly ordained priest says the Consecration, transubstantiation occurs.

However, some people say that there is no transubstantiation because the Novus Ordo does not emphasize the Mass as Sacrifice. My question is, IS it still believed that the Mass is a sacrifice? that is how I’ve always seen it…

thanks! 🙂
 
. If another traditionalist person tells you that the NO doesn’t have the Eucharist, - what do you say, what reasons would you give that it is valid?
Click to expand...
such a person is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church, having rejected the authority with which she has been invested by Jesus Christ himself, and moreover such a person is blaspheming because he has called Christ a liar when he promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Chuch from teaching error. Have nothing whatever to do with such a person, they have nothing of benefit to offer you spiritually and pose many dangers.

you and I need provide no documentation, it is up to the person making the false allegation to provide evidence.
 
There are no arguments!

Anyone who says the OF is invalid and that Eucharist from the OF is invalid are WRONG AND NOT IN COMMUNION WITH ROME!!!

Do yourself a favor and don’t even bother arguing with anyone who says this!
 
Timothysis said:
It has been said here time and time again that reverence is an interior disposition, not something depending upon external actions.
Click to expand...
A Mass is a ritual, directed towards a god, held in a public place. Symbolic actions are important. Without them, there is no ritual. Change them and you change the meaning expressed.

I think the propensity for tinkering in the Latin Rite has become normal in the past 40-odd years and I enjoy a respite from it in the older version.
 
A long time ago, a certain Council declared that anyone who denies transubstantiation occurs is anathema. No Council since has declared otherwise.
 
I’m surprised no one has done the obvious: define validity and show how the 1969 Mass is valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top