B
BBachman
Guest
When does the mass become a sacrifice and when does the mass stop being a sacrifice?
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The Mass is a participation in the perpetual Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ.
B
BBachman
Guest
At what point during the liturgy does the sacrifice begin and at what point does it cease?
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
Though for practical purposes the Mass can be divided into parts, such as the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the Church views the celebration as a whole, in which we participate in the re-presented sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The question of “when is it a sacrifice and when is it not” really has no answer, except that it is all the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
B
BBachman
Guest
If the host is kept in the church at all times is it fair to say the sacrifice of the cross continues to be present, even after mass has ended? I was under the assumption that the perpetual sacrifice if Christ became present at the consecration and was given to god at the Amen. All that remained after that moment was the real presence of Christ in the host, not the sacrifice.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
It stops becoming a sacrifice or in this case a sacrment when either the form or the matter becomes changed in any way. The translation from Latin to English has done just that. The validity of any sacrement depends upon the proper workds by the person administering the sacrement. The Holy Eucharist is twofold in its matter and its form, that is the matter consists of the two substances the bread and the wine, and the form consists of the two separate sets of words, one spoken in conjunction with each of the two sets of matter.
Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated into the Roman Missal. In his Bull, Quo Primium, Pope St Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite “in perpetuity”.
That is not what has happend as we all know as the ICEL has made mince meat out of the Canon of the Mass with flagrant deviations and ommissions which leaves, if you believe in the true definition of a sacrement, in question
BBachman:
Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated into the Roman Missal. In his Bull, Quo Primium, Pope St Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite “in perpetuity”.
That is not what has happend as we all know as the ICEL has made mince meat out of the Canon of the Mass with flagrant deviations and ommissions which leaves, if you believe in the true definition of a sacrement, in question
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
Well, Christ is the Sacrifice, the Sacrificial Lamb, and will remain so forever. So really what you’re asking is, when does the *act *of sacrifice, or the act of re-presentation begin and end in the Mass? Am I correct?
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
Come now. The Eastern Liturgies have never been the same and yet you don’t claim invalidity against them. The proper form, “This is my Body, This is my Blood” has been preserved in the Novus Ordo despite the multitude of changes that occurred. Furthermore, the translation of the Novus Ordo approved and promulgated by the Holy See and the entire College of Bishops–and thus infallible, a doctrine defined at *Vatican I–*long before the Novus Ordo was even conceived.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
You are not correct at all about the Eastern Rites. The Eastern Rites that use the form “This is my blood…etc” rathen than “This is the Chalice of My Blood…etc” and do not have the words "the mystery of faith in the form–absolutely NOTHING has been removed or changed. The Eastern Catholics of these various rites use these various forms which, by the command of Our Lord, were handed down to them by those very Apostles that Proselytized in the East.
Whereas othe Apostles, the ones who first brought Catholicism to the West, handed down the form that is used today in the Latin church (Not the Novus Ordo) and which in fact has always been used. Pope Innocent III (Cum Marthae Circa) in 1202 made this point clear when he taught “Therefore we believe that the form of words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ and their successors from them”
Can the ICEL and the Novus Ordo claim that ???
Dr. Colossus:
Whereas othe Apostles, the ones who first brought Catholicism to the West, handed down the form that is used today in the Latin church (Not the Novus Ordo) and which in fact has always been used. Pope Innocent III (Cum Marthae Circa) in 1202 made this point clear when he taught “Therefore we believe that the form of words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ and their successors from them”
Can the ICEL and the Novus Ordo claim that ???
Dr. Colossus:
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
Well that’s precisely my point. They use forms which have not been significantly changed in the history of their Liturgy. Yet the form they use is different than the Western Liturgy. So there is obviously not an exact proper form, rather a requirement of proper elements of the form (the words of consecration and the epiclesis), which the Novus Ordo preserves, even in the ICEL translation.
Yes they can. They can claim that the words used in the New Mass are an adequate expression of the words handed down from the Apostles to their successors. The Gospels of both Matthew and Mark record Christ’s words as “This is my blood”. Are you saying that this difference from the Traditional Latin Mass’s “This is the Chalice of my Blood” rendered Christ’s consecration invalid? Regardless of the semantic differences in the two liturgies, the Holy Father, the bishops in union with him, and the entire Church use the Novus Ordo. They teach that this Mass is valid, and that Christ is truly present in the Host consecrated through such a Mass. In other words, the whole Church is teaching on a matter of faith and morals, and is thus protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Its funny where you see these rad-Trads pop up to decry the Mass of the Catholic Church and claim that it is invalid yet they still think they are Catholics.
BBachman, and everyone else interested, please read of His Holiness Pope Paul VINovus Ordo Missae. This document addresses this as well as all the other distortions you will get from the rad-Trad crowd.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
In addition to the article cited by David, I might also suggest On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI which addresses the very issue that CrusaderNY brings up.
Deacon Ed
Deacon Ed
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Hi BBachman!
The sacrifice of Christ exists, right now, outside of time, in eternity. At the moment of consecration the “curtain” between eternity and time is drawn back and that sacrifice is made present to us right now, in time.
So the question isn’t really when does the Mass become and cease to be a sacrifice but rather at what point in the Mass does the sacrifice become present to us. That would be at the words of consecration, when the holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If your looking for a beginning and an end to the time during which the sacrifice is made present I suppose one would say that it’s made present only during the consecration after which time “curtain” falls back into place between time and eternity.
Hope that helps.
In Christ,
Nancy
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
Well I guess if defending the Baltimore Catechism as taught to me, and not a watered down 1983 version that took 20 years after V2 to piece together and still appear as “Catholic” makes me a “rad trad”, then I guess I am, and you forgot to say “rigid”," anti ___", “intollerant”, you know all those liberal Pro-Vatican II words that the people who are bent on the destruction of the church.
If I was a defender of the failures of Vatican II, I would throw names around also, even Cardinal Ratzinger admitted in the Tablet:
It was this pessimism which made him dislike so much in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. Again and again, in his 1967 com-mentary on the council’s work, Ratzinger declares that sections of the constitution are ‘quite unsatisfactory’. The attitude which shaped Gaudium et Spes, he lamented, ‘is not at all prepared to make sin the centre of the theological edifice’. Even Lumen Gentium, in its teaching on salvation outside the Church, he found ‘extremely unsatisfactory’, its formulation bordering on Pelagianism. The truth is that Aquinas, the Second Vatican Council, and liberation theology alike represent shifts away from Augustine in a semi-Pelagian direction – shifts which Ratzinger deplores as Utopian. There is a tense subtlety in Ratzinger’s 1960s conciliar commentaries which reveals the mind of a major theological scholar, interpreting the Second Vatican Council loyally yet with an Augustinian edge. Sadly, one seldom finds anything comparable in what he has written more recently, filled with too easy denunciations of ‘relativism’, ‘historicism’, ‘Marxist influences’ and ‘liberal’ academic attitudes of every sort. The danger in all this is that, despite his protestation, it proves impossible to separate his views as a theologian from his policies as cardinal prefect. As Allen notes, it hardly seems surprising that the most revered major Vatican II figure still surviving, Cardinal König, emeritus Archbishop of Vienna, should have felt compelled in 1998 to cry out, ‘I cannot keep silent, for my heart bleeds when I see such obvious harm being done to the common good of God’s Church’ (Tablet article, 16 January 1999, quoted by Allen). The doctrinal congregation, König believed, must be able to ‘find better ways of doing its job’.
ByzCath:
If I was a defender of the failures of Vatican II, I would throw names around also, even Cardinal Ratzinger admitted in the Tablet:
It was this pessimism which made him dislike so much in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. Again and again, in his 1967 com-mentary on the council’s work, Ratzinger declares that sections of the constitution are ‘quite unsatisfactory’. The attitude which shaped Gaudium et Spes, he lamented, ‘is not at all prepared to make sin the centre of the theological edifice’. Even Lumen Gentium, in its teaching on salvation outside the Church, he found ‘extremely unsatisfactory’, its formulation bordering on Pelagianism. The truth is that Aquinas, the Second Vatican Council, and liberation theology alike represent shifts away from Augustine in a semi-Pelagian direction – shifts which Ratzinger deplores as Utopian. There is a tense subtlety in Ratzinger’s 1960s conciliar commentaries which reveals the mind of a major theological scholar, interpreting the Second Vatican Council loyally yet with an Augustinian edge. Sadly, one seldom finds anything comparable in what he has written more recently, filled with too easy denunciations of ‘relativism’, ‘historicism’, ‘Marxist influences’ and ‘liberal’ academic attitudes of every sort. The danger in all this is that, despite his protestation, it proves impossible to separate his views as a theologian from his policies as cardinal prefect. As Allen notes, it hardly seems surprising that the most revered major Vatican II figure still surviving, Cardinal König, emeritus Archbishop of Vienna, should have felt compelled in 1998 to cry out, ‘I cannot keep silent, for my heart bleeds when I see such obvious harm being done to the common good of God’s Church’ (Tablet article, 16 January 1999, quoted by Allen). The doctrinal congregation, König believed, must be able to ‘find better ways of doing its job’.
S
SeekerJen
Guest
It would really be great if once in a while a thread could just stay on topic and not turn into another “let’s bash Vatican II and the vernacular Mass” free-for-all. We all do have the ability to simply start a new thread.Some of us are interested in simply discussing or reading about the original topic. Go figure.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
Deacon
What do you expect Pope Paul VI to say, that the mass he pieced together, throwing away over 70% of the Traditional Latin Mass, then translating the remaining or whatever was left into the vernacular, so poor of a translation that the Vatican recently sent out last year ANOTHER version of the translated liturgy that the American Bishops, so many of them who cant even understand Latin as it is not taught in the seminaries no longer, were to lazy to come to a conclusion on. Do you expect him to say that the New Mass is a failure or Invaild? He has to defend it. I do attend when I have no other alternative the NO mass, but it is a selfish mass, one that worships man and the laity and Not God, banal and bare as the “table” that is in front of the church with nothing whatsoever sacred adorning it.
Deacon Ed:
What do you expect Pope Paul VI to say, that the mass he pieced together, throwing away over 70% of the Traditional Latin Mass, then translating the remaining or whatever was left into the vernacular, so poor of a translation that the Vatican recently sent out last year ANOTHER version of the translated liturgy that the American Bishops, so many of them who cant even understand Latin as it is not taught in the seminaries no longer, were to lazy to come to a conclusion on. Do you expect him to say that the New Mass is a failure or Invaild? He has to defend it. I do attend when I have no other alternative the NO mass, but it is a selfish mass, one that worships man and the laity and Not God, banal and bare as the “table” that is in front of the church with nothing whatsoever sacred adorning it.
Deacon Ed:
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
Reference Baltimore Catechism 1885, Lesson 24
When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?
The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass
What is the Mass?
The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ
What is a sacrifice?
A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things
Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross
How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same—Christ our Blessed Lord;and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.
What are the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?
The ends for which the sacrifice of the Corss was offered were: 1st, To honor and Glorify God; 2nd, To thank him for all of the graces bestowed upon the whole world;3rd, To satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men and 4th, To obtain all graces and blessings.
Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass?
Yes, the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross, Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and wine, represents His death on the Cross.
How should we assist at Mass?
We should assist at Mass with the great interior recollection and piety and with every outward mark of respect and devotion
Baltimore Cathechism, Lesson 12
What do you mean by the infallibility of the church?
By infallibility of the Church I mean that the Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of faith and morals
When does the Church teach infallibly?
The church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and the bishops, united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith and morals
Has the church any marks by which it is known?
The church has four marks by which it may be known: it is ONE; it is Holy;it is Catholic; it is Apostolic
How is the Church Apostolic?
The Church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ and his Apostles, and it is governed by their lawful successors,and because it HAS NEVER CEASED, AND WILL NEVER CEASE TO TEACH THEIR DOCTRINE.
So the question above asks, if the new mass is now " the Lords Supper",and the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of our Lord, of which the consecrated words which were handed down by the Apostles from the Latin rite were mutilated 4 times after Vatican II, is the Mass a sacrifice and is the sacrifice a Mass any longer?
Is the church still Apostolic, one of the 4 outwards signs it needs not to defect, is the Pope and the Bishops teaching the doctrine the Apostles and early Doctors of the church handed down, or are they making up their own doctrine?
Is it a faithful doctrine>? I see nothing in the catechisms where it says, well you can change to be up with the times!
When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?
The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass
What is the Mass?
The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ
What is a sacrifice?
A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things
Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross
How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same—Christ our Blessed Lord;and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.
What are the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?
The ends for which the sacrifice of the Corss was offered were: 1st, To honor and Glorify God; 2nd, To thank him for all of the graces bestowed upon the whole world;3rd, To satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men and 4th, To obtain all graces and blessings.
Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass?
Yes, the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross, Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and wine, represents His death on the Cross.
How should we assist at Mass?
We should assist at Mass with the great interior recollection and piety and with every outward mark of respect and devotion
Baltimore Cathechism, Lesson 12
What do you mean by the infallibility of the church?
By infallibility of the Church I mean that the Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of faith and morals
When does the Church teach infallibly?
The church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and the bishops, united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith and morals
Has the church any marks by which it is known?
The church has four marks by which it may be known: it is ONE; it is Holy;it is Catholic; it is Apostolic
How is the Church Apostolic?
The Church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ and his Apostles, and it is governed by their lawful successors,and because it HAS NEVER CEASED, AND WILL NEVER CEASE TO TEACH THEIR DOCTRINE.
So the question above asks, if the new mass is now " the Lords Supper",and the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of our Lord, of which the consecrated words which were handed down by the Apostles from the Latin rite were mutilated 4 times after Vatican II, is the Mass a sacrifice and is the sacrifice a Mass any longer?
Is the church still Apostolic, one of the 4 outwards signs it needs not to defect, is the Pope and the Bishops teaching the doctrine the Apostles and early Doctors of the church handed down, or are they making up their own doctrine?
Is it a faithful doctrine>? I see nothing in the catechisms where it says, well you can change to be up with the times!
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
CrusaderNY,
If I may highlight a different sentence than the one you did in the Baltimore Catechism:
If I may highlight a different sentence than the one you did in the Baltimore Catechism:
What exactly do you think Vatican II was if not a general council?
Perhaps you can break down for me why you think the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” are so horribly mutilated from the original Greek?
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
In Part V of DeDefectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus which is a section incorporated into the rubrics and the Roman Missal at Trent, which was to be used in perpetuity, the words of consecration, which are the FORM of the sacrement (remember that for a sacrement to be valid it must have proper matter and form) are :"For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for MANY unto the remission of sins"
In the “All English Canon” that was introduced, the ICEL gave the following form for the wine consecration:
“this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant-the mystery of faith. This blood is to be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven”
After two more goes at it, it now reads:
"This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for ALL so that sins may be forgiven"
(pro multis-for many, not for all no matter what the liberals say, it translates as for many)
So, the questions is asked, has the form been altared, destroyed, invalidated? If not, why not, as a church, change it at all, why change the most sacred part of the Mass, is it because Bugnini and his 6 Protestants wanted it that way?
Dr. Colossus:
In the “All English Canon” that was introduced, the ICEL gave the following form for the wine consecration:
“this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant-the mystery of faith. This blood is to be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven”
After two more goes at it, it now reads:
"This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for ALL so that sins may be forgiven"
(pro multis-for many, not for all no matter what the liberals say, it translates as for many)
So, the questions is asked, has the form been altared, destroyed, invalidated? If not, why not, as a church, change it at all, why change the most sacred part of the Mass, is it because Bugnini and his 6 Protestants wanted it that way?
Dr. Colossus:
D
Dr.Colossus
Guest
Pope St. Pius V’s decree to use this form “in perpetuity” was a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. If it were otherwise, he would not have included immediately thereafter, “unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given”.
Pro Multis in Latin does mean “for many”, but a question must be asked at this point. Is the meaning of the words changed by the English Translation? I would answer no, because the meaning of the sentence is the same. Consider the new translation in its entirety: “It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” It is not a guarantee that all will be saved. The meaning is still preserved.
- Status