Lefevbre exaggerates regarding new offetory prayers

[Rogerteder]

This is typical of those who totally oppose the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Lefebvre never mentions that the new offertory prayers do mention sacrifice (Blessed are you Lord God of all creation through your goodness we have this bread to OFFER … it will become for us the Bread of Life.) Same with the prayer for the wine (it will become our spiritual drink). Then what is said in the New Mass??? " May the Lord accept the SACRIFICE at your hands for the praise and glory of His name…"

Notice Lefebvre says the prayers do not express the Catholic notion of sacrifice. SAYS WHO??? SAYS HIM??? WHO THE HECK IS HE??? It might be his opinion that the old prayers are better but, who is he to say the new mass prayers (offertory) are unacceptable especially when they mention “offer” and “sacrifice?”

Lefebvre’s words:
“The new Offertory prayers do not express the Catholic notion of the sacrifice. They simply express the concept of a mere partaking of bread and wine. For instance, this Tridentine Mass addressed to God the prayer: “Accept O Holy Father, heavenly and eternal God, this immaculate victim which your unworthy servant offers to you, my living and true God to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences.” The New Mass says: ‘We offer this bread as the bread of life.’ There is no mention of sacrifice or victim. This text is vague and imprecise, lends itself to ambiguity and was meant to be acceptable to Protestants. It is, however, unacceptable to the true Catholic faith and doctrine. The substance has been changed in favor of accommodation and compromise.”

 

[malphono]

This is typical of those who totally oppose the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Lefebvre never mentions that the new offertory prayers do mention sacrifice (Blessed are you Lord God of all creation through your goodness we have this bread to OFFER … it will become for us the Bread of Life.) Same with the prayer for the wine (it will become our spiritual drink). Then what is said in the New Mass??? " May the Lord accept the SACRIFICE at your hands for the praise and glory of His name…"

Notice Lefebvre says the prayers do not express the Catholic notion of sacrifice. SAYS WHO??? SAYS HIM??? WHO THE HECK IS HE??? It might be his opinion that the old prayers are better but, who is he to say the new mass prayers (offertory) are unacceptable especially when they mention “offer” and “sacrifice?”

And this sort of rant is typical of those who haven’t a clue about the EF.

 

[stuart12]

The words of the Old Rite are more explicit regarding sacrifice. Sacrificial language is all the way through it and there is no mistake that it is Christ who is sacrificed. The N.O leads us to believe that it is a mere spiritual offering of ourselves. Yes, we unite ourselves with the Cross of Christ, but the true Sacrifice is the main thing.

 

[I_Believe]

And this sort of rant is typical of those who haven’t a clue about the EF.

Seems to be a “Roger” thing…

“The Tridentine Mass was meant for those who could not make the transition from Latin to English [or other languages] after the Council. But there is no participation by the people, and I don’t believe that instills the spirit of Christ among us.”
ncregister.com/daily/cardinal_mahony_vs._latin_mass

 

[Rogerteder]

The words of the Old Rite are more explicit regarding sacrifice. Sacrificial language is all the way through it and there is no mistake that it is Christ who is sacrificed. The N.O leads us to believe that it is a mere spiritual offering of ourselves. Yes, we unite ourselves with the Cross of Christ, but the true Sacrifice is the main thing./QUOTE)

AGREED SO WHAT!!! The New Mass still has sacrificial terms and theology. That is the point!! Lefebvre never acknowledged that----at least not in that interview.

 

[tcm22]

And this sort of rant is typical of those who haven’t a clue about the EF.

I think the OP’s point is that Lefebvre is misrepresenting both the meaning and content of the OF prayers. The OP goes on to point out, correctly I might add, that Lefebvre may have an opinion, but that his opinion does not supercede the teachings and doctrine of the Church.

It’s not about OF vs EF. Reasonable people can differ in their preference. What they can’t differ about (and still be Catholic) is whether one form of the Mass is more valid than another.

Just for the record – Jesus didn’t speak Latin at the Sermon on the Mount or the Last Supper.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I think the OP’s point is that Lefebvre is misrepresenting both the meaning and content of the OF prayers. The OP goes on to point out, correctly I might add, that Lefebvre may have an opinion, but that his opinion does not supercede the teachings and doctrine of the Church.

It’s not about OF vs EF. Reasonable people can differ in their preference. What they can’t differ about (and still be Catholic) is whether one form of the Mass is more valid than another.

Just for the record – Jesus didn’t speak Latin at the Sermon on the Mount or the Last Supper.

Tcm and Rog,

There are no varying degrees of validity of the Eucharist, it either is or it isn’t.

The Archibishop’s point was not that every instance of the word “sacrifice” (except for one) was deleted from the New Mass. He certainly could read and knew that some folks may even recognize the word when they say it at the end of the Offertory.

His point was that sacrificial aspect of the Mass, Specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was minimized, if not eliminated, in favor of the Pascal Supper. This minimalizing was, as we all now know from the writings of Bugnini himself, to appease our Protestant brethren so that no part of the Mass should remain that would be offensive to them.

What did have to go we references to “immolation” of the Victim. Luther wrote that the Latin rite “…stinks of oblation”, so, of course, all references to “oblation” had to go. And finally, since sacrifices are traditionally offered on altars, all references to “altars” had to go in favor of the “table”, as in the Supper Table. Hence we lost “I will go unto the altar of God, The God who giveth joy to my youth…” as well as “I will wash my hands among the innocent and I will walk around your altar, O God…”

That is what the Archbishop spoke of, not that a reference to the word “sacrifice” was left in a response at the end of the offertory, but that the focus was changed - hardly an exaggeration.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Just for the record – Jesus didn’t speak Latin at the Sermon on the Mount or the Last Supper.

Just for the record, Christ most certainly spoke Latin to Pilot - who would not be speaking Aramaic.

 

[Rogerteder]

Tcm and Rog,

There are no varying degrees of validity of the Eucharist, it either is or it isn’t.

The Archibishop’s point was not that every instance of the word “sacrifice” (except for one) was deleted from the New Mass. He certainly could read and knew that some folks may even recognize the word when they say it at the end of the Offertory.

His point was that sacrificial aspect of the Mass, Specifically the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was minimized, if not eliminated, in favor of the Pascal Supper. This minimalizing was, as we all now know from the writings of Bugnini himself, to appease our Protestant brethren so that no part of the Mass should remain that would be offensive to them.

What did have to go we references to “immolation” of the Victim. Luther wrote that the Latin rite “…stinks of oblation”, so, of course, all references to “oblation” had to go. And finally, since sacrifices are traditionally offered on altars, all references to “altars” had to go in favor of the “table”, as in the Supper Table. Hence we lost “I will go unto the altar of God, The God who giveth joy to my youth…” as well as “I will wash my hands among the innocent and I will walk around your altar, O God…”

That is what the Archbishop spoke of, not that a reference to the word “sacrifice” was left in a response at the end of the offertory, but that the focus was changed - hardly an exaggeration.

The notion of sacrifice is definitley not eliminated. Just read my post above. Is there as many references to sacrifice in the New mass as TLM–no but so what. The Archbishop clearly stated that the new mass prayers dont depict the Catholic notion of sacrifice—that is what is at issue—SO STOP SAYING THE OLD MASS HAS MORE REFERENCES TO SACRIFICE —WE KNOW THAT!!!

 

[tcm22]

The notion of sacrifice is definitley not eliminated. Just read my post above. Is there as many references to sacrifice in the New mass as TLM–no but so what. The Archbishop clearly stated that the new mass prayers dont depict the Catholic notion of sacrifice—that is what is at issue—SO STOP SAYING THE OLD MASS HAS MORE REFERENCES TO SACRIFICE —WE KNOW THAT!!!

Exactly…and the implication is that the OF is somehow not as good because it is somehow different from the EF.

I don’t know of any educated Catholics who deny or don’t understand the concept of sacrifice in the mask. Quoting a guy who clearly has an axe to grind with the Church surely doesn’t do much to promote unity in the Body of Christ.

Lefevbre isn’t the Pope, nor is he speaking for the Magisterium. I think that bears mentioning on this forum. I would suggest anyone claiming to be Catholic to carefully evaluate anything this guy has to say.

 

[Timothysis]

Eucharistic Prayer III in the Missal of Pope Paul VI is the prayer meant to be used on Sundays and Holy Days. While the language itself is not as “flowery” as that of the Tridentine missal , you will still find that all of the relevant language in the prayers is distinctly catholic in regards to the offering and as a sacrifice.

Eucharistic Prayer I is simply an english translation of the Roman Canon and Eucharistic Prayer II is the anaphora of St. Hippolytus, which pre-dates the Roman Rite and also pre-dates protestantism by over 1000 years.

While some may not be personally pleased by the prayers themselves, there is no doubt that the prayers themselves and what they mean to accomplish are traditionally and distinctly catholic.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The notion of sacrifice is definitley not eliminated. Just read my post above. Is there as many references to sacrifice in the New mass as TLM–no but so what. The Archbishop clearly stated that the new mass prayers dont depict the Catholic notion of sacrifice—that is what is at issue—SO STOP SAYING THE OLD MASS HAS MORE REFERENCES TO SACRIFICE —WE KNOW THAT!!!

The old Mass has more references to sacrifice … and oblation.

Again, the number of times it is mentioned in the old Mass, as opposed to the one time it is mentioned in the Novus Ordo, is not the issue. It is the centering of the Mass on Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary, repeated on the altar in an unbloody sacrifice offered by the alter-Christus, compared to an orientation on the far-more-Protestant-acceptable Pascal Banquet.

 

[Timothysis]

… compared to an orientation on the far-more-Protestant-acceptable Pascal Banquet.

What makes any of the Eucharistic Prayers in Pope Paul’s missal so acceptable to protestants that is not traditionally catholic? Can you give examples from the missal itself?

Thank you

 

[giuseppeTO]

What makes any of the Eucharistic Prayers in Pope Paul’s missal so acceptable to protestants that is not traditionally catholic? Can you give examples from the missal itself?

Thank you

Tim,

There are dozens of books written on the subject. Some of the best testimony comes from quotes from Card Bugnini himself on what he intended as the author of the Pauline Mass. I will post some suggested reading for you. The fact that the Novus Ordo Missae and the Lutheran “Mass” and the Episcopal “Mass” are nearly indistinguishable from each other, even down to the lectionary and the consecration, should be a good indication that what Luther and Cranmer intended in their changes to the Mass to distance themselves from the Pius V Missal and the belief in the true presence are now part what passes for the Ordinary Form of the Catholic Mass. No other qualification or explanation is necessary. It took 460 years but Luther finally got his Mass into the Catholic church, and it was the Catholics who accomplished it.

If you don’t believe this can be true, get a dispensation to attend a Lutheran Church on Sunday and see if you can determine any difference from the Novus Ordo. I just went to a Lutheran funeral “Mass” so I am speaking from experience. the biggest difference was that people were a bit more respectful of the place of worship than I’ve seen in many diocesan churches.

 

[stuart12]

The old Mass has more references to sacrifice … and oblation.

Again, the number of times it is mentioned in the old Mass, as opposed to the one time it is mentioned in the Novus Ordo, is not the issue. It is the centering of the Mass on Christ’s bloody sacrifice on Calvary, repeated on the altar in an unbloody sacrifice offered by the alter-Christus, compared to an orientation on the far-more-Protestant-acceptable Pascal Banquet.

I agree with you. If one were to go to an average N.O. parish, one would find very few (if any?) that could say what the Mass is. Even if they did mention the Real Presence, how many would mention the act of Sacrifice?

 

[Timothysis]

Tim,

There are dozens of books written on the subject. Some of the best testimony comes from quotes from Card Bugnini himself on what he intended as the author of the Pauline Mass. I will post some suggested reading for you. The fact that the Novus Ordo Missae and the Lutheran “Mass” and the Episcopal “Mass” are nearly indistinguishable from each other, even down to the lectionary and the consecration, should be a good indication that what Luther and Cranmer intended in their changes to the Mass to distance themselves from the Pius V Missal and the belief in the true presence are now part what passes for the Ordinary Form of the Catholic Mass. No other qualification or explanation is necessary. It took 460 years but Luther finally got his Mass into the Catholic church, and it was the Catholics who accomplished it.

If you don’t believe this can be true, get a dispensation to attend a Lutheran Church on Sunday and see if you can determine any difference from the Novus Ordo. I just went to a Lutheran funeral “Mass” so I am speaking from experience. the biggest difference was that people were a bit more respectful of the place of worship than I’ve seen in many diocesan churches.

But I have read on this forum that in the 1970s AFTER the Vatican II council the Lutheran and Episcopal churches revised their liturgy in the style of the Catholic Church. This is a lengthy quote but I include it since it pertains to the issue at hand:

"Max Thurian, a Calvinist monk at the time, wrote the following in reference to Protestantism and the Pauline Rite Mass:

• “Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants… the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation.” (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.) Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired by the ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the 3rd Century, from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic." *

I think the phrase “distinctly Catholic” is very telling.

Thanks.

 

[Timothysis]

The fact that the Novus Ordo Missae and the Lutheran “Mass” and the Episcopal “Mass” are nearly indistinguishable from each other, even down to the lectionary and the consecration, should be a good indication that what Luther and Cranmer intended in their changes to the Mass to distance themselves from the Pius V Missal and the belief in the true presence are now part what passes for the Ordinary Form of the Catholic Mass. No other qualification or explanation is necessary. It took 460 years but Luther finally got his Mass into the Catholic church, and it was the Catholics who accomplished it.

A quick check with google revealed this; "In the United States the new Lutheran rite (1978, Lutheran Book of Worship), draws considerably from Roman sources."

It seems that the similarity in the liturgy of the Catholic Church and Lutheran church is based on the fact that 8 years after the second Vatican Council the Lutheran church revised their rite “considerably from Roman sources,” meaning that it was the Lutherans who copied the Catholics and not the other way around.

So, Luther actually did NOT get “his Mass into the Catholic church.”

Incidentally, I remember reading about a priest on the EWTN forum who learned ancient languages at a Lutheran seminary. He was most surprised that the Lutheran seminarians were the last people in the world who cared about anything Martin Luther ever said!

 

[Filioque]

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X have never been of one mindset. From the 3 1/2 years I spent in the Seminaries of the SSPX, and the priests and former seminarians I have kept contact with the divisions remain.

Archbishop Lefebvre was a very well educated man, Doctorates in Theology, and I think Philosophy. Having taught in seminaries, and former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He was well versed in Catholic Theology, Dogmatic, Moral and Pastoral. In the first few years at Econe, the Masses celebrated in the Chapel included the John XIII Missal, the 1965 Missal and the 1970 Missal, (Ordinary form nowadays), There were among the seminarians and faculty those who rejected even the reforms of Pope Pius XII, but would not speak of it in front of Abp. Lefebvre. When I was in the Seminary at Ridgefield, we had to shift our mindset from the Pre 1955 Missal to the 1962 Missal and Breviary when Abp. Lefebvre visited. Most went along with what the Rector wanted (to hide from the Abp. our true liturgical use, in order to be ordained some day.)

Now comes my own speculation, and I’m sure the ire and defamation of current SSPX supporters. Given the issues and choices of bishops at the time of the illicit consecrations. The Archbishop was not a young man when the seminary in Econe was established. His stance became more hardline over time, and he became more isolated from what was going on both in the SSPX and the outside world. Wanting to retire and spend his time in a monstary, he was (from what I could see) dusted off and paraded around by those who really controlled the SSPX as his health declined. They fed him stories of the worst of the abuses as if they were everyday activities in allmost all the parishes around the world. In his relative isolation he became further and further driven to the position he eventually took calling the Pope and Curia, “Neo-Modernist Rome” and refusing lawful authority, and the distorted, defective ecclesiology of the SSPX that allows them to claim filial devotion to the Holy See, while at the same time rejecting any obedience to the Pope.

I do hope they are recociled to the Holy See, and fully submit. I will be one of the most grateful to see old friends una cum, the entire Church.

 

[giuseppeTO]

A quick check with google revealed this; "In the United States the new Lutheran rite (1978, Lutheran Book of Worship), draws considerably from Roman sources."

It seems that the similarity in the liturgy of the Catholic Church and Lutheran church is based on the fact that 8 years after the second Vatican Council the Lutheran church revised their rite “considerably from Roman sources,” meaning that it was the Lutherans who copied the Catholics and not the other way around.

So, Luther actually did NOT get “his Mass into the Catholic church.”

Incidentally, I remember reading about a priest on the EWTN forum who learned ancient languages at a Lutheran seminary. He was most surprised that the Lutheran seminarians were the last people in the world who cared about anything Martin Luther ever said!

I admit all this Tim. But you can’t escape the fact that the Novus Ordo and the Lutheran service can coexist in a single service that is theologically acceptable to Lutherans. This could NEVER be said of the Pius V Mass, but the Novus Ordo has been “cleansed” of anything unacceptable to Lutherans. And given that the Lutheran faith is a heresy, particularly in their beliefs on the Blessed Sacrament, the priesthood (of man), and justification, does it not give you pause that the celebration of our Sacrament, the center of Roman Catholicism, can be celebrated by Lutherans without contradicting their heresy where the Mass of Pius V embraced practically everything Luther rejected?

 

[Timothysis]

I admit all this Tim. But you can’t escape the fact that the Novus Ordo and the Lutheran service can coexist in a single service that is theologically acceptable to Lutherans. This could NEVER be said of the Pius V Mass, but the Novus Ordo has been “cleansed” of anything unacceptable to Lutherans. And given that the Lutheran faith is a heresy, particularly in their beliefs on the Blessed Sacrament, the priesthood (of man), and justification, does it not give you pause that the celebration of our Sacrament, the center of Roman Catholicism, can be celebrated by Lutherans without contradicting their heresy where the Mass of Pius V embraced practically everything Luther rejected?

How is it Pope Paul’s fault that Lutherans are so theologically inept that they can adopt something as their own that does not even represent their beliefs? Would you say the same about Pope Pius V’s missal if , in 1978, the Lutheran’s adopted it as their liturgy?

As I posted earlier from the Calvinist monk, the prayers in Pope Paul’s missal are “distinctly Catholic.”