Can Anyone Show Me One Or More Parts of The Ordinary Of The Novus Ordo Missal That Is Contrary To Catholicism ?

[FlosCampi]

  Mithran,

Why is it that when someone shows you where the words  Sacrifice is used in the Novus Ordo Mass, you then you proceed to  ridicule  and accuse him of illustrating  the parts  where the word Sacrifice is.  If you want NO's to wise up, you need to be a bit more specific in why you are criticizing.     

[FlosCampi]

It's sad and laughable that the rebuttal to "The New Mass has effectively removed the sacrificial aspects of the mass" is met with "No, there's a part where we say that word!"

Indeed. Catholics just don't understand the problem.

Ok I'm a supid neanderthal NO .  I can't enter into the kingdom of heaven because I can't say the words right, I'm not worthy,  duh , duh duh,   so I'll just have to go to hell.
So what what do Catholics  not understand? 

[HuskerTom]

FWIW, some excerpts of the new missal from the USCCB's site:

"With humble spirit and contrite heart may we be accepted by you, O Lord, and may our
sacrifice in your sight this day be pleasing to you, Lord God."

"Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to
God, the almighty Father."

"...that you accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices,..."

"...the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim."

"...so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name."

"...we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice."

"Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizingthe sacrificial Victim by whose death..."

"May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, we pray, O Lord,advance the peace and salvation of all the world."

I still agree the NO treats the Mass more as a celebration than a sacrifice, but it does make mention of sacrifice in the text.  Whether the priests actually use the texts as they should, well, that's another story.

[JayneK]

It's sad and laughable that the rebuttal to "The New Mass has effectively removed the sacrificial aspects of the mass" is met with "No, there's a part where we say that word!"

How dare people talk about facts and evidence like that?  Clearly the correct response is to make fun of those you disagree with.   

The NO Mass is still a sacrifice.  Any Church teaching on the subject explicitly says so and, as mentioned, the word "sacrifice" appears multiple times.  I would agree with a claim that the concept of sacrifice is not expressed as clearly as it is in the TLM, but claiming it is effectively removed seems an overstatement.

[Mithrandylan]

  Mithran,

Why is it that when someone shows you where the words  Sacrifice is used in the Novus Ordo Mass, you then you proceed to  ridicule  and accuse him of illustrating  the parts  where the word Sacrifice is.  If you want NO's to wise up, you need to be a bit more specific in why you are criticizing.     

You mean like how I did on p 17 of the thread?   

Ah, those were the days    (this thread is old)

So,  3 1/2 years and a revised missal later, what say the fishes ?

Allow me to quote from Cranmer's Godly Order:

An accepted principle in regard to liturgical worship is that the doctrinal standpoint of a Christian body must necessarily be reflected in its worship. Liturgical rites should express what they contain. It is not necessary for the Catholic position to be expressly contradicted for a rite to become suspect; the suppression of prayers which had given liturgical expression to the doctrine behind the rite is more than sufficient to give cause for conern. This principle is embodied in the phrase legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi ("let the law of prayer fix the law of faith")-- in other words the liturgy of the Church is a sure guide to her teaching. This is usally presented in the abbreviated form of lex orandi, lex credendi, and can be translated freely as meaning that the manner in which the Church worships (lex orandi) must reflect what the Church believes (lex credendi)...
When this principle is applied to the Protestant services, it reveals how clearly the embody the true doctrinal position of the reformers. "As in the new communion service, so in the new ordination rite, it was not what was expressed but what was suppressed that gave expression to the whole (57).

And Leo XIII, on the Anglican orders, quoted in Davies:

They (The Anglican Reformers) knew only too well the intimate bond with unites faith and worship, lex credendi and lex supplicandi: and so, under the pretext of of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators. As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated (58)."

Concluding, if you haven't already:

... It is not the fact that conservative-minded clergy such as Gardiner could use it (Cranmer's mass) "as though it were the same as the ancient Mass" which is improtant: it is the fact that it could be interpreted for what it was intended to be (58).

[INPEFESS]

It's sad and laughable that the rebuttal to "The New Mass has effectively removed the sacrificial aspects of the mass" is met with "No, there's a part where we say that word!"

Indeed. Catholics just don't understand the problem.

Ok I'm a supid neanderthal NO .  I can't enter into the kingdom of heaven because I can't say the words right, I'm not worthy,  duh , duh duh,   so I'll just have to go to hell.
So what what do Catholics  not understand? 

There is no really no cause to engage in self-pity. The point is that the Catholic Church teaches (against the Protestants) that the Mass is not just a sacrifice but that it is a propitiatory sacrifice. This means that the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, as an atonement for sin, is of the same efficacy as was the bloody sacrifice of Calvary. The Church declared this to be a dogma, codified the Mass to include this dogma in several places to distinguish it as the Catholic Mass from all heretical liturgies, and then promulgated this Mass in the most solemn way. The new liturgy, like the Protestant liturgies, says that the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but the revolutionaries that designed the new liturgy in the '60s stripped from the liturgy all mention of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice. According to the authors, this was done for the sake of ecumenism--that is, the fostering of a unity amongst Catholics and non-Catholics--by not offending the Protestants with Catholic doctrine.

Pope Pius XII taught via the ordinary magisterium, and the Church has always believed, that Catholic liturgy must conform to the doctrinal decrees issued by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which Catholic liturgy has never failed to do. The systematic removal of distinctly Catholic dogmas of the Church from the liturgy is a betrayal of the Church's mission to publicly profess the Faith (which She does in many ways, including by means of Her liturgy) and to unabashedly teach the Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. This public profession of these truths on behalf of the Church in every generation is necessary for the Church's very visibility.

The reason that the mere reference to sacrifice during the liturgy is insufficient is because that alone does not make it Catholic anymore than the Protestant liturgies' references to sacrifice makes them Catholic. The Church has solemnly condemned as a heresy the idea that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Sure, the new liturgy doesn't say, "The Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," but the most it ever acknowledges is that the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; it professes nothing more, and neither does the new definition of the Mass promulgated with the new liturgy. This is very troubling for a liturgy that is said to be Catholic, yet fails to profess what the Catholic Church believes about the very nature of the prayer of the Mass.

[DrBombay]

Every Mass is of infinite value since it is the Sacrifice of Calvary.  To claim it is worth less than infinity is blasphemy.  And sacrilege to boot.  (In other words, NOT Catholic.) 

You perfectly describe the NOM.

It is, as you say, blasphemous and a sacrilege.

 

No it isn't.  Please don't attempt to make use of my words to support your specious, nutty, theologically ignorant, historically obtuse, liturgically inept, spiritually vacuous sedevacantist ravings.

Huh?

Here I'm thinking you understood there was a crisis.

Then why are you even here? - to mock the Holy Sacrifice same as the NOM does?

Stubborn, I am here to point out that you lack the necessary authority to declare an approved Rite of the Church blasphemous and sacrilegious.  I'll wait until the Church does so, thank you.  Perhaps I will be rebuked by God someday that I did not cull my theological opinions from semi-anonymous folks on the internet.

[JayneK]

Every Mass is of infinite value since it is the Sacrifice of Calvary.  To claim it is worth less than infinity is blasphemy.  And sacrilege to boot.  (In other words, NOT Catholic.) 

You perfectly describe the NOM.

It is, as you say, blasphemous and a sacrilege.

 

No it isn't.  Please don't attempt to make use of my words to support your specious, nutty, theologically ignorant, historically obtuse, liturgically inept, spiritually vacuous sedevacantist ravings.

Huh?

Here I'm thinking you understood there was a crisis.

Then why are you even here? - to mock the Holy Sacrifice same as the NOM does?

Stubborn, I am here to point out that you lack the necessary authority to declare an approved Rite of the Church blasphemous and sacrilegious.  I'll wait until the Church does so, thank you.  Perhaps I will be rebuked by God someday that I did not cull my theological opinions from semi-anonymous folks on the internet.

And, Stubborn,  I want to express just how miffed I am at being put in the position of having to agree with someone like Dr. Bombay.   

[DrBombay]

It's sad and laughable that the rebuttal to "The New Mass has effectively removed the sacrificial aspects of the mass" is met with "No, there's a part where we say that word!"

Indeed. Catholics just don't understand the problem.

Ok I'm a supid neanderthal NO .  I can't enter into the kingdom of heaven because I can't say the words right, I'm not worthy,  duh , duh duh,   so I'll just have to go to hell.
So what what do Catholics  not understand? 

There is no really no cause to engage in self-pity. The point is that the Catholic Church teaches (against the Protestants) that the Mass is not just a sacrifice but that it is a propitiatory sacrifice. This means that the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, as an atonement for sin, is of the same efficacy as was the bloody sacrifice of Calvary. The Church declared this to be a dogma, codified the Mass to include this dogma in several places to distinguish it as the Catholic Mass from all heretical liturgies, and then promulgated this Mass in the most solemn way. The new liturgy, like the Protestant liturgies, says that the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but the revolutionaries that designed the new liturgy in the '60s stripped from the liturgy all mention of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice. According to the authors, this was done for the sake of ecumenism--that is, the fostering of a unity amongst Catholics and non-Catholics--by not offending the Protestants with Catholic doctrine.

Pope Pius XII taught via the ordinary magisterium, and the Church has always believed, that Catholic liturgy must conform to the doctrinal decrees issued by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which Catholic liturgy has never failed to do. The systematic removal of distinctly Catholic dogmas of the Church from the liturgy is a betrayal of the Church's mission to publicly profess the Faith (which She does in many ways, including by means of Her liturgy) and to unabashedly teach the Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. This public profession of these truths on behalf of the Church in every generation is necessary for the Church's very visibility.

The reason that the mere reference to sacrifice during the liturgy is insufficient is because that alone does not make it Catholic anymore than the Protestant liturgies' references to sacrifice makes them Catholic. The Church has solemnly condemned as a heresy the idea that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Sure, the new liturgy doesn't say, "The Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," but the most it ever acknowledges is that the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; it professes nothing more, and neither does the new definition of the Mass promulgated with the new liturgy. This is very troubling for a liturgy that is said to be Catholic, yet fails to profess what the Catholic Church believes about the very nature of the prayer of the Mass.

Yeah.  Kinda unfortunate you brought this up.

85. Commemoration of the Living.

Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N.

The Priest joins his hands and prays briefly for those for whom he intends to pray.
Then, with hands extended, he continues:

and all gathered here,
whose faith and devotion are known to you.
For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise
or they offer it for themselves
and all who are dear to them:
for the redemption of their souls,
in hope of health and well-being,
and paying their homage to you,
the eternal God, living and true.

And how about this:

May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation,
we pray, O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.

And get a load of this from the consecration:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

Gasp!!!!  What's that I spy with my little eye?  An additional phrase in the NO consecration not present in the TLM???  "WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU"  Golly, doesn't get much more propitiatory than that, no? 

[DrBombay]

Every Mass is of infinite value since it is the Sacrifice of Calvary.  To claim it is worth less than infinity is blasphemy.  And sacrilege to boot.  (In other words, NOT Catholic.) 

You perfectly describe the NOM.

It is, as you say, blasphemous and a sacrilege.

 

No it isn't.  Please don't attempt to make use of my words to support your specious, nutty, theologically ignorant, historically obtuse, liturgically inept, spiritually vacuous sedevacantist ravings.

Huh?

Here I'm thinking you understood there was a crisis.

Then why are you even here? - to mock the Holy Sacrifice same as the NOM does?

Stubborn, I am here to point out that you lack the necessary authority to declare an approved Rite of the Church blasphemous and sacrilegious.  I'll wait until the Church does so, thank you.  Perhaps I will be rebuked by God someday that I did not cull my theological opinions from semi-anonymous folks on the internet.

And, Stubborn,  I want to express just how miffed I am at being put in the position of having to agree with someone like Dr. Bombay.