Sacrilege

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kristopher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kristopher

Guest
Dear Reader:

“sacrilege”
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
Paragraph 2120
“Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.”

The Bible says, Matthew 26:27-28 (NAB1991)–after a statement by Paulus P P. VI, Sept. 18, 1970: "…translators have carried out the directive of our predecssor, Pius XII, in his famous Encylical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) , which prescribed that “up-to-date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages, by preference from the original texts of the sacred books”, and that “with the approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren” so that “all Christians may be able to use them”. (before page 7)

“…Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgivenss of sins…”

The 1955 missal with Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman: “…this is the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.” (page 679)

The 1999 missal with Imprimatur: Patrick J. Sheridan, D.D.: Eucharistic Prayer No. 2: “…this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant…shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

I have a missalette used in my local parish, Nuvos Ordo, here without any Imprimatur at all; we are told that we do not need it, but such people continue to demand that they receive pay, and for what? Certainly there is no need of people that are to fill the position of authority, which determines such teachings and liturgical practices are in fact infallible with respect both to faith, and to morals–when these people refuse to work!

One cannot tell if in fact the Nuvos Ordo mass is a sacrilege: There is no way to determine in fact, with respect to the 1999 missal, anything at all has been consecrated–certainly it is not effective at forgiving sins. Where you once could attend mass with conviction, in the faith that sins by attendance at mass were in fact forgiven–it now exists only as a probability, a dubious event at best, where all are welcome not only to attend, but also to partake of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which patheticly is justified by casting doubt across Christianity with respect to the once taught fact, our sins are forgiven by Christ’s sacrifice of Calvary–how can we remember this at mass, with the current words “all” and “maybe” in the 1999 missal? It is now a matter of doubt in Nuvos Ordo Catholic Churches.

My, how things change. You might as well receive the sacrament from an Evangelical, or from a Protestant. One can safely say, if there is any blood and divinity of Christ there–it has been watered down: The ability of Jesus’ blood to forgive all is now questionable, doubtful, as the priest’s words testify against Jesus’ sacrifice, which may, or may not forgive sins. How do you bring someone to such a church? One might say, "Uh, yeah, come to my church. Drink, I think it’s the blood of Christ, can’t ever believe a priest to teach us right; he is the reason many Protestants read the Bible: Incompetent priests, but hey! You know: You just might still be able to be forgiven by the Sacrament of the Eucharist, maybe, or is it may be…well, at least you are welcome now in a Catholic Church, no matter who you are, to receive the Blessed Sacrament, and you don’t even have to stick out your tongue! Just take it in the hand–maybe you can run out with it through the door, into the streets like all the other Satanists of yore.

Have fun at your Nuvos Ordo celebration. The faith is watered down a bit too much for me. Sacrilege , one has to ask first: is the Nuvos Ordo mass even holy enough to consider raising so hastily, as I have done, a question about sacrilege .

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
I have never known any other Mass.I love the EWTN Mass although I do not know Latin.But I an tell you I KNOW that the Eucharist is our Lord:)
 
I’m not even going to wrap my head around all those arguments, but before you come down too hard on those of us who attend Novus Ordo masses, please realize that that is the only kind of Mass available for many of us – nearest Tridentine Mass hundreds of miles away, for example.
Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
 
“One cannot tell if in fact the Nuvos Ordo mass is a sacrilege: There is no way to determine in fact, with respect to the 1999 missal, anything at all has been consecrated–certainly it is not effective at forgiving sins. Where you once could attend mass with conviction, in the faith that sins by attendance at mass were in fact forgiven–it now exists only as a probability, a dubious event at best, where all are welcome not only to attend, but also to partake of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which patheticly is justified by casting doubt across Christianity with respect to the once taught fact, our sins are forgiven by Christ’s sacrifice of Calvary–how can we remember this at mass, with the current words “all” and “maybe” in the 1999 missal? It is now a matter of doubt in Nuvos Ordo Catholic Churches.”
Anyone is welcome in my parish church but only CATHOLICS are allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist. I may be misunderstanding you - is this not the practice in all Catholic Churches? Or are there some Parishes that allow non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist? Wouldn’t that be something to report to the Bishop?
I am asking only because I am not sure I follow what you are arguing. Please do not get upset.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I have never known any other Mass.I love the EWTN Mass although I do not know Latin.But I an tell you I KNOW that the Eucharist is our Lord:)
Click to expand...
Dear Lisa,

I have no doubt about it, but tell me: When you open your missal–do you want to read: Your Lord’s bloods has been shed for the forgivess of sins, or do you want to read: Your Lord’s blood has been shed, and may be it will forgive sins.

It is just so wrong. It is just so wrong that the blood of Christ is not recognized through the words of consecration in Eucharistic Prayer No. 2, 1999 to be forigiving by nature, but something doubtful, and the word all opens the Eucharist to all. This is not the theology of the Sacrament of Communion. There is a great online webpage of the Didache, which states very clearly: The Eucharist is for Catholics only! No one else for the reason, this is the reason given: We should not throw before dogs what is precious to us, but this is just the Didache.

It is just so wrong.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
Hey Kristopher in my Parish the bulletins and the announcements state that non-Catholics are not allowed to take the Holy Eucharist,maybe other Parishes do not do that but ours thankfully does:)
 
40.png
Kristopher:
When you open your missal–do you want to read: Your Lord’s bloods has been shed for the forgivess of sins, or do you want to read: Your Lord’s blood has been shed, and may be it will forgive sins.
Click to expand...
I attend Novus Ordo Mass (which I am perfectly happy with, by the way), and I have never seen anything like this in the missal; nor have I seen any policy that says it’s OK for non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist. Where do you get the idea that this is the accepted belief in churches that use the NO Mass? Maybe you had a bad experience in one particular church, but please don’t tar them all with the same brush.
Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
 
I can’t make head nor tail of the original post, except this is another TLM posting, asking of the Novus Ordo (sic) Mass is a sacrilege. If the Mass at your parish church is celebrated by a priest of the Catholic church who is in good standing and is celebrated according to the rite given to the universal Church by our late beloved Pope Paul VI, and the requirements of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal are adhered to it is a valid Mass and a licit consecration of the Eucharist (I think I have those 2 terms in the right order). There is absolutely no reason for the faithful in the pews to fret about it. The missalette is neither here nor there, that is not the Roman Missal, it is not the Sacramentary, it is not the lectionary or book of the Gospels. It is an aid to those in the congregation who can benefit from it.

To hold that the Mass promulgated in the Roman Missal by the Pope is a sacrilege is to deny his authority and therefore to deny one’s Catholic faith, and to refuse to acknowledge this as the Mass of the Church is to put oneself in schism. This has been done to death and ought to be a banned topic, if it is not already.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I can’t make head nor tail of the original post, except this is another TLM posting, asking of the Novus Ordo (sic) Mass is a sacrilege. If the Mass at your parish church is celebrated by a priest of the Catholic church who is in good standing and is celebrated according to the rite given to the universal Church by our late beloved Pope Paul VI, and the requirements of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal are adhered to it is a valid Mass and a licit consecration of the Eucharist (I think I have those 2 terms in the right order). There is absolutely no reason for the faithful in the pews to fret about it. The missalette is neither here nor there, that is not the Roman Missal, it is not the Sacramentary, it is not the lectionary or book of the Gospels. It is an aid to those in the congregation who can benefit from it.

To hold that the Mass promulgated in the Roman Missal by the Pope is a sacrilege is to deny his authority and therefore to deny one’s Catholic faith, and to refuse to acknowledge this as the Mass of the Church is to put oneself in schism. This has been done to death and ought to be a banned topic, if it is not already.
Click to expand...
Very well said!
And we must remember that it is dangerous to call something good, bad…
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
I can’t make head nor tail of the original post, except this is another TLM posting, asking of the Novus Ordo (sic) Mass is a sacrilege. If the Mass at your parish church is celebrated by a priest of the Catholic church who is in good standing and is celebrated according to the rite given to the universal Church by our late beloved Pope Paul VI, and the requirements of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal are adhered to it is a valid Mass and a licit consecration of the Eucharist (I think I have those 2 terms in the right order). There is absolutely no reason for the faithful in the pews to fret about it. The missalette is neither here nor there, that is not the Roman Missal, it is not the Sacramentary, it is not the lectionary or book of the Gospels. It is an aid to those in the congregation who can benefit from it.

To hold that the Mass promulgated in the Roman Missal by the Pope is a sacrilege is to deny his authority and therefore to deny one’s Catholic faith, and to refuse to acknowledge this as the Mass of the Church is to put oneself in schism. This has been done to death and ought to be a banned topic, if it is not already.
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
LSK said:
“One cannot tell if in fact the Nuvos Ordo mass is a sacrilege: There is no way to determine in fact, with respect to the 1999 missal, anything at all has been consecrated–certainly it is not effective at forgiving sins. Where you once could attend mass with conviction, in the faith that sins by attendance at mass were in fact forgiven–it now exists only as a probability, a dubious event at best, where all are welcome not only to attend, but also to partake of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which patheticly is justified by casting doubt across Christianity with respect to the once taught fact, our sins are forgiven by Christ’s sacrifice of Calvary–how can we remember this at mass, with the current words “all” and “maybe” in the 1999 missal? It is now a matter of doubt in Nuvos Ordo Catholic Churches.”
Anyone is welcome in my parish church but only CATHOLICS are allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist. I may be misunderstanding you - is this not the practice in all Catholic Churches? Or are there some Parishes that allow non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist? Wouldn’t that be something to report to the Bishop?
I am asking only because I am not sure I follow what you are arguing. Please do not get upset.
Click to expand...

Great, I am glad to hear it. Let me know when it changes.
 
When you open your missal–do you want to read: Your Lord’s bloods has been shed for the forgivess of sins, or do you want to read: Your Lord’s blood has been shed, and may be it will forgive sins.
Click to expand...
The implication that the meaning is that Christ’s blood being shed isn’t a guarantee of the forgiveness of sins is ludicrous and borders on sophistry.

On the one hand, you have the older language “shed for many unto the remission of sins” (interesting how the older language adds “the mystery of faith” which doesn’t appear in any scriptural accounts of the Institution of the Sacrament, but I digress) and the newer language that says, “shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” In both cases, the theology is the same and can be misunderstood and misinterpreted if someone has an agenda.

For example, a supralapsarian could come along, look at the older language and say, “see, Christ’s blood was only shed for ‘the many’” and use it in making a case for limited atonement. The newer language eliminates this because it says that Christ’s blood was shed for all making the forgiveness of sins a possibility. The possibility is, of course, contingent upon the conditions for receiving that forgiveness: faith, confession and repentance/penance.

It works the other way around, too. A person who believes that everyone will be saved, these words say, no, they “may be forgiven.” Again, the same condition remains to receive that forgiveness: faith, confession and repentance/penance.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
The implication that the meaning is that Christ’s blood being shed isn’t a guarantee of the forgiveness of sins is ludicrous and borders on sophistry.

On the one hand, you have the older language “shed for many unto the remission of sins” (interesting how the older language adds “the mystery of faith” which doesn’t appear in any scriptural accounts of the Institution of the Sacrament, but I digress) and the newer language that says, “shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” In both cases, the theology is the same and can be misunderstood and misinterpreted if someone has an agenda.

For example, a supralapsarian could come along, look at the older language and say, “see, Christ’s blood was only shed for ‘the many’” and use it in making a case for limited atonement. The newer language eliminates this because it says that Christ’s blood was shed for all making the forgiveness of sins a possibility. The possibility is, of course, contingent upon the conditions for receiving that forgiveness: faith, confession and repentance/penance.

It works the other way around, too. A person who believes that everyone will be saved, these words say, no, they “may be forgiven.” Again, the same condition remains to receive that forgiveness: faith, confession and repentance/penance.
Click to expand...
Also very well said! 🙂
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
The implication that the meaning is that Christ’s blood being shed isn’t a guarantee of the forgiveness of sins is ludicrous and borders on sophistry.

On the one hand, you have the older language “shed for many unto the remission of sins” (interesting how the older language adds “the mystery of faith” which doesn’t appear in any scriptural accounts of the Institution of the Sacrament, but I digress) and the newer language that says, “shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” In both cases, the theology is the same and can be misunderstood and misinterpreted if someone has an agenda.

For example, a supralapsarian could come along, look at the older language and say, “see, Christ’s blood was only shed for ‘the many’” and use it in making a case for limited atonement. The newer language eliminates this because it says that Christ’s blood was shed for all making the forgiveness of sins a possibility. The possibility is, of course, contingent upon the conditions for receiving that forgiveness: faith, confession and repentance/penance.

It works the other way around, too. A person who believes that everyone will be saved, these words say, no, they “may be forgiven.” Again, the same condition remains to receive that forgiveness: faith, confession and repentance/penance.
Click to expand...
I also think that the original poster is having a little difficulty with the difference between the words “may be” and “maybe”. It’s “that sins may be forgiven,” (ie, are now capable of being forgiven) as opposed to “that sins maybe forgiven,” (ie, “well, we’ll give this a shot, who knows, it might work”). Perhaps English is not his first language.
 
Dear Reader:

Glad you all enjoyed the post and found it to be informative. I figure that I am in the wrong forum. Think I will mosey to another part of The Internet.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top