What is the sacrificing nature of the mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter New_eve
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

New_eve

Guest
I know Catholics state that the Anglican eucharist is invalid because it is not sacrificing in nature. What does it mean to be sacrificing?
 
Anglican sacraments are invalid because their priests are not successors of the apostles.

The sacrificial nature of Mass is a re-presentation. Jesus’ perfect sacrifice upon the cross is made present, and the priest offers His body and blood up to God the Father so as to renew our covenant with Him. Then we consume the Lamb of God, as the Israelites had to consume the lambs they sacrificed and offered up to God the Father, and thus go into Communion with God and are made one in the Body of Christ.
 
New_eve said:
I know Catholics state that the Anglican eucharist is invalid because it is not sacrificing in nature. What does it mean to be sacrificing?
Click to expand...
The Mass makes us present at the one time Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary, sacrificing His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearance of bread and wine.
 
New_eve said:
I know Catholics state that the Anglican eucharist is invalid because it is not sacrificing in nature. What does it mean to be sacrificing?
Click to expand...
I don’t know because I have never heard that particular expression. the Eucharist confected by Anglican priest and bishops are not valid because they do not hold apostolic succession and hence have no authority through Christ by the Holy Spirit to do so.
 
puzzleannie said:
I don’t know because I have never heard that particular expression. the Eucharist confected by Anglican priest and bishops are not valid because they do not hold apostolic succession and hence have no authority through Christ by the Holy Spirit to do so.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the sacrificing nature of the mass the reason they are not in Apostolic succession?
 
New_eve said:
Isn’t the sacrificing nature of the mass the reason they are not in Apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
I would say no. The reason they are not in Apostolic succession was because the ordnantion rite changed, as I understand it, to such an extent that ordination became invalid.
 
I would say no. The reason they are not in Apostolic succession was because the ordnantion rite changed, as I understand it, to such an extent that ordination became invalid.
Click to expand...
But wasn’t the entire reason the ordination rite changed because the people involved thought the Latin Rite was entirely superstitious in nature?
 
bmullins said:
But wasn’t the entire reason the ordination rite changed because the people involved thought the Latin Rite was entirely superstitious in nature?
Click to expand...
Yes from the encyclopedia
In the sixteenth century this doctrine of a priesthood endowed with mystical powers was pronounced superstitious by most of the Protestant Reformers, who, accordingly, rejected Holy Order from among the number of their sacraments.
Click to expand...
From that I gather they thought all of the priesthood was superstitious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top