Why do some claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

on this “for many/for all” issue.

Some “rad-Trads” will point to us Byzantines, as in the Divine Liturgy we use for many.

Here are the words of institution from the Divine Liturgy.

PRIEST: Take, eat; this is may body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins.
PEOPLE: Amen

PRIEST: Likewise, the chalice + after He had supped, saying; Drink of this, all of you, this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen.

But they ignore the next part. (underlinded emphasis added)

PRIEST: Remembering, therefore, this precept of salvation and everything that was done for our sake: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again. We offer You your own, from what is your own, in all and for the sake of all.

PEOPLE: We praise You. We bless You. We give thanks to You, O our God.

I would go on to say that in the Byzantine Tradition we do not teach that the words of institution are when the change from bread and wine to Body and Blood occurs.

It occurs with the next set of prayers, the Epiclisis. Actually that is only if we are pressed, we say it takes the whole Anaphora.

Here is the Epiclisis.

PRIEST: Moreover, we offer You this spiritual and unbloodly worship, and we ask, pray and entreat: sand down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts offered.
DEACON: Bless the holy bread, Master.

PRIEST: +And make this bread the precious Body of your Christ.

DEACON: Amen. Bless the holy chalice, Master.

PRIEST: +And that which is in this chalice the precious Blood of your Christ.

DEACON: Amen. Bless them both, Master.

PRIEST: +Changing them + by your Holy Spirit.

DEACON: Amen. Amen. Amen.

PRIEST: So that, to those who partake of them, they may be for the cleansing of soul, for the remission of sins, for the communion of your Holy Spirit, for the fullness of the kingdom of heaven, for intimate confidence in You, and not for judgment or condemnation.

As for those who claim that that Mass is invalid, or even just allude to it being invalid. They have raised themselves in authority over the Church and God.

They think they know best. They use flawed reasoning or worst yet, they do not reason at all, they take what they have been told becuase they despise Holy Mother Church and the Holy Spirit.

 

[katolik]

Byzcath:
Only the schismatic Orthodox say that the epiclesis changed the bread and wine into the Holy Eucharist. Byzantine/Greek Catholics have always said this as opposed to the schismatic Orthodox.
The epiclesis is not needed for the Eucharist to be the Eucharist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katolik:

Byzcath:
Only the schismatic Orthodox say that the epiclesis changed the bread and wine into the Holy Eucharist. Byzantine/Greek Catholics have always said this as opposed to the schismatic Orthodox.
The epiclesis is not needed for the Eucharist to be the Eucharist.

Wrong, in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy the Epiclesis is necessary for the Eucharist to be the Eucharist. You can not leave out part of the Anaphora and still have a valid Eucharist.

And I am also sorry to tell you but it is as I said for the Byzantine Tradition. It teaches just as I said. Your view, if held by Byzantines is one of the many Latinizations we are purging ourselves of.

And one more time, one can not be born into schism (as spelt out in the Catechism) so the Orthodox are not schismatics.

 

[katolik]

ByzCath:

Wrong, in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy the Epiclesis is necessary for the Eucharist to be the Eucharist. You can not leave out part of the Anaphora and still have a valid Eucharist.

And I am also sorry to tell you but it is as I said for the Byzantine Tradition. It teaches just as I said. Your view, if held by Byzantines is one of the many Latinizations we are purging ourselves of.

And one more time, one can not be born into schism (as spelt out in the Catechism) so the Orthodox are not schismatics.

Oh please sir!
It doesn’t matter what the schismatic byzantine orthodox tradition is, it matters what the Holy Catholic Church has taught through the Popes. The Holy Catholic Church has taught that the Christ is present in the Eucharist with or without the Epiclesis. The Catholic Faith of the Apostles is a latinization!!!

The schism stands. No one can be born into schism but can he accept it? How many Orthodox curse Roman and Greek Catholics for believing in purgatory or the filioque? That at least makes them heretics. I have a question, would you call a Catholic who left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox schism would he be a schismatic?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katolik:

Oh please sir!
It doesn’t matter what the schismatic byzantine orthodox tradition is, it matters what the Holy Catholic Church has taught through the Popes. The Holy Catholic Church has taught that the Christ is present in the Eucharist with or without the Epiclesis. The Catholic Faith of the Apostles is a latinization!!!

Just more attacks on the Byzantine Catholic Church.

I will say it again, without the whole Anaphora, or Eucharistic prayer, the Eucharist is not confected, so there is no Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy without the Epiclesis.

Can you please point me to the Teaching of the Catholic Church that says that the Epiclesis is not necessary in the Byzantine Tradition.

You can’t becuase there is not one.

 

[Brendan]

ByzCath:

It occurs with the next set of prayers, the Epiclisis. Actually that is only if we are pressed, we say it takes the whole Anaphora.

Which is in line with Catholic teaching.

What is commonly forgotten is that the Church has only spoken definitively on the subject in re: on complete Eucharistic Prayers.

The rest (as in the actual moment of Consecration) is theological speculation upon which the Church has not made a judgement to be held by all the faithful.

We know as objective Truth that the Eucharist is present upon the completetion of the Eucharistic Prayer\Anaphora, as it is de fide that a valid Anaphora must have BOTH an Epiclesis and the Words of Institution (even if implied).

In the Roman Church, we adore (and therefore recognized the Blessed Sacrament) upon completion of both the Epiclesis AND the Words of Institution.

In the East, the Epiclesis is after the Narrative, and the East adores after both the Narrative and Epiclesis.

The same as we

 

[katolik]

ByzCath:

Just more attacks on the Byzantine Catholic Church.

I will say it again, without the whole Anaphora, or Eucharistic prayer, the Eucharist is not confected, so there is no Eucharist in the Divine Liturgy without the Epiclesis.

Can you please point me to the Teaching of the Catholic Church that says that the Epiclesis is not necessary in the Byzantine Tradition.

You can’t becuase there is not one.

Sorry but you forgot the adjective Catholic in Byzantine Catholic. The belief in purgatory, the filioque, the consecration making the Eucharist,indulgences, and Papal authority is what separates you from the ACROD and OCA schismatics. You are Catholics first and foremost.

Brendan:
Many Orthodox have said that the Roman Rite’s Canon - Now known as the First Eucharistic prayer has no Epiclesis and this is true. So would that mean that people for about 1000 years had no valid Eucharist?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is so sad that we have to keep going over the same ground. We have discussed this before but some just refuse to learn.

katolik:

Sorry but you forgot the adjective Catholic in Byzantine Catholic. The belief in purgatory, the filioque, the consecration making the Eucharist,indulgences, and Papal authority is what separates you from the ACROD and OCA schismatics. You are Catholics first and foremost.

You seem to ignore that the Holy Father has commanded us to return to our Traditions.

Purgatory is not a Byzantine Belief. We do believe in the purgative process but not Purgatory.

You will not hear the Filoque in any of our Churches that have done away with his latinization. I have yet to say the Filoque at the Divine Liturgy. The Holy Father even omits it when he is at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

The consecration does not make the Eucharist, the Anaphora does. Please show the Catholic Teaching that says different.

The Catholic Church recoginizes the Anaphora of the Assyrian Orthodox Church which does not have the words of institution.

Brendan:
Many Orthodox have said that the Roman Rite’s Canon - Now known as the First Eucharistic prayer has no Epiclesis and this is true. So would that mean that people for about 1000 years had no valid Eucharist?

No it doesn’t, as Brendan said…

Brendan:

We know as objective Truth that the Eucharist is present upon the completetion of the Eucharistic Prayer\Anaphora, as it is de fide that a valid Anaphora must have BOTH an Epiclesis and the Words of Institution (even if implied).

In the frist Eucharistic prayer, the Epiclesis is implied, just as the words of institution are implied in the Anaphora of the Assyrian Orthodox Church.

So sad…

 

[Windmill]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will ask:

"Is there an official church document that refers to the current form of the Mass as the “Novus Ordo”? I mean, the name is in Latin, like it is the official name. But I’ve heard elsewhere that this is merely a slur used by Traditionalists to cast doubt upon the validity of the rite.

I may be wrong, but I’m still asking, and no one is answering. If I’m right, I think it may be a minor act of uncharity to use this term.

Rich

 

[katolik]

ByzCath:

It is so sad that we have to keep going over the same ground. We have discussed this before but some just refuse to learn.
You seem to ignore that the Holy Father has commanded us to return to our Traditions.

And since when does that mean to deny Catholic dogma? Are you talking about Catholic Traditions or schismatic traditions?
Well I know the schismatic orthodox tradition is to reject Catholicism but is that the Catholic tradition?

Purgatory is not a Byzantine Belief. We do believe in the purgative process but not Purgatory.

You will not hear the Filoque in any of our Churches that have done away with his latinization. I have yet to say the Filoque at the Divine Liturgy. The Holy Father even omits it when he is at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

Purgatory is a Catholic belief which must be held by ALL CATHOLICS. No matter if you are Ukrainian,Melkite, Ruthenian, Roman or Malankara Catholics.

The Filioque is a Catholic dogma, it must be believed for salvation. It can’t be thrown into the trash bin because it is a “latinization”.
By what logic can you reject Catholic dogma under the guise of being a “latinization”?

The consecration does not make the Eucharist, the Anaphora does. Please show the Catholic Teaching that says different.

The Catholic Church recoginizes the Anaphora of the Assyrian Orthodox Church which does not have the words of institution.

No it doesn’t, as Brendan said…
In the frist Eucharistic prayer, the Epiclesis is implied, just as the words of institution are implied in the Anaphora of the Assyrian Orthodox Church.

So sad…

.Thank you for calling me an idiot. I am gleeful and happy now. Have you heard that Rome has planned to reject that anaphora of addai and mari? Hehe…
How is something implied if it doesn’t exist?

 

[TNT]

BulldogCath:

TNT

It is simply titled “The Mass” A Study of the Roman Liturgy
Written by Adrian Fortescue
It was first written in 1912 and is published by Preserving Christian Publications, Inc out of Albany

A truly eye-opening book and it makes it clear that what took place in 1970 was a butchering of a Mass that has essentially been handed down by Martyrs, Saints, Popes, and the Apostles themselves, and replaced with what is essentially a Protestant service. It is sad that something like this could actually happen.

A Must read for all-as it is facts and history before the winds of Vatican II came about and before there were all of these labels. So that the Modernist who reads this book can actually see that the mass is indeed sacred , especially the Canon and was never to be touched-but was ripped apart bu Bugnini and his co-horts

DONE, ON ITS WAY. THANKS.

 

[bear06]

TNT:

DONE, ON ITS WAY. THANKS.

Oh sure, someone suggests a book on the horrors of VII and you run out an buy it. I suggest a tape series from an acutal Vatican II attendee and participator on the Mass and you won’t get it. What am I to do with you?

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Oh sure, someone suggests a book on the horrors of VII and you run out an buy it. I suggest a tape series from an acutal Vatican II attendee and participator on the Mass and you won’t get it. What am I to do with you?

Now THAT’s a hypocrite! I confess. You’re sounding like my wife…a black widow waiting for weeks or months to pounce on something I said or did long ago and (like a man) forgot about. I come here for escape and solace, and what do I get…GRIEF!

Ok, what was that site again, dear?

 

[BulldogCath]

Bear, dont be jealous!-a book is a nice read-tapes can be boring.

bear06:

Oh sure, someone suggests a book on the horrors of VII and you run out an buy it. I suggest a tape series from an acutal Vatican II attendee and participator on the Mass and you won’t get it. What am I to do with you?

 

[katolik]

bear06:

Oh sure, someone suggests a book on the horrors of VII and you run out an buy it. I suggest a tape series from an acutal Vatican II attendee and participator on the Mass and you won’t get it. What am I to do with you?

Bear06:
A Novus Ordo Benedictine monastery also reprints this book! Oh yeah and the book was written in 1912! Search and type in Fortescue. It’s there!

 

[bear06]

TNT:

Now THAT’s a hypocrite! I confess. You’re sounding like my wife…a black widow waiting for weeks or months to pounce on something I said or did long ago and (like a man) forgot about. I come here for escape and solace, and what do I get…GRIEF!

Ok, what was that site again, dear?

saintjoe.com/p/product_search.pl?keywords=vatican%20II&topic=none&format=&sp=20

Bear, dont be jealous!-a book is a nice read-tapes can be boring.

Hey, he’s naming my children. At least he can invest in a tape series for me!

BTW, please keep this delivery in your prayers. This baby has been a bigger pain than any of them and it’s not even officially here yet. He/she is diagonal which is not the greatest among other little problems. At least it’s not sideways! I hope this isn’t a sign of things to come. Maybe it’ll be a rad-Trad - a little off the mark.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katolik:

The Filioque is a Catholic dogma, it must be believed for salvation. It can’t be thrown into the trash bin because it is a “latinization”.
By what logic can you reject Catholic dogma under the guise of being a “latinization”?

Then I guess the Holy Father is going to Hell as he leaves out the Filioque when he is at a Byzantine Divine Liturgy and he has told us to remove it from the Creed that we recite.

The Filioque is not dogma, can you show me where this dogma is spelt out?

.Thank you for calling me an idiot. I am gleeful and happy now. Have you heard that Rome has planned to reject that anaphora of addai and mari? Hehe…
How is something implied if it doesn’t exist?

Just returning the favor.

As for rumors of what Rome is going to do, I will wait for them to do so but as they have yet to do it and they have said that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is valid, it is valid.

As for the last bit, do you know the definition of implied?

Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier, from Latin implicare
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly

If it was there then it could not be implied.

 

[Brendan]

katolik:

Brendan:
Many Orthodox have said that the Roman Rite’s Canon - Now known as the First Eucharistic prayer has no Epiclesis and this is true. So would that mean that people for about 1000 years had no valid Eucharist?

The various Popes has said that the Supplics in both the Canon and in the *Súpplices te * constitute a Valid Epiclesis. As the See of Peter is the Final Temporal Authority on these matters (see Vatican I ), I cannot but accept this judgement.

Te igitur, clementissime Pater,
per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum,
supplices rogamus, ac petimus,
uti accepta habeas, et benedicas,
haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata

 

[Brendan]

katolik:

.

The Filioque is a Catholic dogma, it must be believed for salvation. It can’t be thrown into the trash bin because it is a “latinization”.
By what logic can you reject Catholic dogma under the guise of being a “latinization”?

And where is it required that every doctrine and dogma be included in the Nicean Creed?

The Assumption\Dormition of the Blessed Virgin is required Dogma, but do we say it in the Creed??

The Eastern Catholics have an understanding of the Filioque that is acceptable to the See of Peter, and has been since Brest in 1596. And you are now coming in and saying that all those Popes have been wrong and YOU are right on this subject???

What arrogance!!

 

[katolik]

Brendan:

And where is it required that every doctrine and dogma be included in the Nicean Creed?

The Assumption\Dormition of the Blessed Virgin is required Dogma, but do we say it in the Creed??

The Eastern Catholics have an understanding of the Filioque that is acceptable to the See of Peter, and has been since Brest in 1596. And you are now coming in and saying that all those Popes have been wrong and YOU are right on this subject???

What arrogance!!

You say that the Eastern Catholics have their own interpretation of the Filioque but Byzcath asks me “since when is filioque dogma?”

Hmm,
Oh yes and many modern Byzantine Catholics believe that the Unia of 1596 and the other Unia are evil and a part of a disease they call “Uniatism”!!! Try to tell them that Orthodox need to be converted because they are extra Ecclesiam!!