for example, does anyone know if the Mass is still considered a Sacrifice, and how is this seem in the Novus Ordo?From the Roman Canon (EP1)I understand that maybe it’s better to simply not argue this at all… but sometimes their arguments make me doubt too, so it would be good to know the counter-argument
Yes- the OF is considered a sacrifice, why would you think it is not?
Since the Latin EP1 is almost identical to the EF Canon, I don’t know how one can logically or objectively claim that the “NO” (as in ALL “NO”) is invalid.
Monica, I agree with the above. It seems you are questioning the teaching authority of the Magisterium if you feel a need to argue with people who declare the Eurcharist not valid in the NO.From the Roman Canon (EP1)
Yes- the OF is considered a sacrifice, why would you think it is not?
As far as having doubts, why are you doubting what the Chruch teaches and not what some of these people you are talking to are saying?
I am starting to think, Monica, that you need to spend a lot less time on the internet, and a lot more time reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is where you will find all the answers you seek.
I don’t know how to answer this but it does beg the question: do all those who doubt that the Mass is a Sacrifice or that transubstantiation has occured also doubt the validity of the “NO,” even if they attend a weekly “NO”?I understand that maybe it’s better to simply not argue this at all… but sometimes their arguments make me doubt too, so it would be good to know the counter-argument
Because in the past I’ve read articles that say that in the OF, the priest is not seen as one who offers the Sacrifice. Maybe it’s confusing because it says “we”, whereas technically speaking we don’t offer the Sacrifice, the priest does. Maybe it’s referring to us joining in his prayers which is fine, since the Church has approved the wording.From the Roman Canon (EP1)
Yes- the OF is considered a sacrifice, why would you think it is not?
As far as having doubts, why are you doubting what the Chruch teaches and not what some of these people you are talking to are saying?
I do read the Catechism and other literature. I just asked here what counter-argument I could use for these points
that is all. Trying to figure things out is not the same as doubting.that makes sense… honestly I don’t know enough about that argument that they use. I just read what Archbishop Lefebvre etc said. (I read this a long time ago, not recently).
I am questioning the Church by wanting to defend its teachings?
I didn’t say I disbelieved the teachings, but that since I don’t know enough theology, sometimes what people tell me makes me confused.Sadly if you’re speaking to a sedevacantist they won’t agree though. I was hoping to come up with an argument that works from their own perspective also.
well I do see the TLM as being more reverent, but I don’t want to argue that here.
thanks!
IMHO, this is your problem.
All that is required for validity is a validly ordained priest, even if he’s not Catholic. The words of consecration, except in one of the rites, which does not require them; but that does not apply here. And the intent to consecrate.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!
Forgive my ignorance here, please. I am confused. What do you mean when you say, “even if he’s not Catholic.” Do you mean if a non-Catholic priest (i.e., a validly ordained Orthodox priest) said the NO Mass with the words of consecration and the intent to consecrate that there would, in fact, be a valid Eucharist? I had thought the priest has to be a part of the rite (within Catholicism) or have bi-ritual faculties in order to celebrate the liturgy and consecrate the Eucharist within a given rite. Can a NO Mass and consecration even be done with an Orthodox priest?
thanks for the information Br JRAll that is required for validity is a validly ordained priest, even if he’s not Catholic. The words of consecration, except in one of the rites, which does not require them; but that does not apply here. And the intent to consecrate.
Transubstantiation is not dependent on the reverence of the priest or the congregation, nor on the holiness of either priest or congregation. Even if the priest has doubts, the consecration is valid if he has matter and form.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Many sedevacantists seem to believe that some priests who celebrate the OF do not intend to consecrate. Although such priests might potentially be out there, I don’t think I have never met such a priest, and probably their number is exaggerated in these arguments.That was only part of it. Here were the other reasons for doubting the all-English canon as it was in the 60’s.
