I’ve read complaints that the Novus Ordo is not explicit in it’s sacrificial nature, however both the 3 and 4th canons or “Eucharistic prayers” contain Sacrificial language than what is the problem with them, why then do folks deride and attempt to prove their invalidity? I just don’t get some folks?
Most NO Masses use the Second Eucharistic Prayer, being the shortest, and modern theology of the Mass downplays the sacrificial nature in favor of a communal meal. My textbook from religion class in High School actually said that Vatican II abolished the teaching of Mass as sacrificial.
I know of the four canons in the Novus Ordo Missae, the Second Canon is not as explicit in it pertaining to the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, but what about the 3rd and 4th canons, they seem valid, why then do some continue to claim the Novus Ordo as ineffectual, invalid, or in cappable of consecrating the Eucharist? I attend a Novus Ordo every Sunday, and for now, a TLM is out of reach for me, if the Novus Ordo is invalid, I’m left with no other option then to either go Byzantine or SSPX. And I’d rather not do the latter, if I could first get directions/ transportation to my Extraordinary mass at St. Boniface’s in Pittsburgh.
So long as the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are said by a validly ordained priest, over bread and wine, with the intention of consecrating them as the Holy Eucharist, the Mass is valid.
I would say your old HS text books preach heresy. And, disagree that modern theology of the Mass downplays the sacrificial nature in favor of a communal meal. In MHO! At least in our diocese.
Thanks Caesar, for this post! And ravenonthecross don’t worry, I think your safe.
Even without any sacrificial language at all, there is still the sacrificial symbolism of the bread/Body being consecrated first, and then the wine/Blood, symbolizing the separation of the blood from the body of the oblation.
I know we all know this here but just in case, I just wanted to point out that the document on the Liturgy from Vatican II calls the Mass a sacrifice at least 10 times (I just counted) and nowhere does it “abolish” this understanding.
Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum also calls it a sacrifice multiple times. He calls it a sacrifie 34 times in his encyclical, Mysterium Fidei.
Likewise, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia calls it sacrifice 69 times lamenting:
“Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows… At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet.” Ecclesia de Eucharistia 10
General Instruction for the Roman Missal is also filled with references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass (there were so many I gave up counting), including this in the preamble:
"2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly asserted by the Council of Trent in accordance with the Church’s universal tradition,1 was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which offered these significant words about the Mass: "At the Last Supper our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which he would perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, thus entrusting to the Church, his beloved Bride, the memorial of his death and resurrection."2
For someone to put such a thing in a textbook is either inexcusable ignorance or malice. Those who put such tripe in textbooks for youth are [size=2][FONT=Arial]engaged[/size][/FONT], in the words of Pope Bl. John XXII[size=2][FONT=Arial]I, “in an altogether despicable business.” (Ad Petri Cathedram, 11)[/size][/FONT]
I beg to differ, the Catholic teaching is the same and the same sacrifice is offered in the NOM, the TLM or any rite of the Church- the same sacrifice that Christ accomplished on the Cross.
There is nothing wrong with the mass that we celebrate today because you can experience God and his presence as well participate in the sacrifice of our Savior. I know this because every Sunday when I go to Mass I experience God & partake of his sacrifice.
I agree that I am tired of these individuals who work so hard to devalue our worship because it is not spoken in latin.
If you cannot experience God’s presence at a modern mass you need to look inside and ask yourself what are YOU doing wrong.
Stop using the NO mass as an excuse to not worship God.
I also want to point out that I do not think that nothing is wrong with the traditional latin mass either it has served our church for a very long time, but that being said I do like being able to participate in the liturgy which I would not be able to do as well if it was in latin.
One question to traditionalist and other Catholics is why can’t we have the ability to celebrate the traditional mass in the vernacular?
Read the Short Critical study of the Mass from 1969. It was composed by a group of 12 theologians.
Please explain what all of this means if “This is My Body” and This is My Blood” are all that is needed?
De Defectibus Papal Bull of Pope St. Pius V.
V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
If “This is My body” and “This is my Blood” is all that is needed, why did the Council of Trent go into such a detailed explanation of the form?
Catechism of TrentForm To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: 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, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form…
Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration.
The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.
Next follow the words: Of the new testament. These have been added that we might understand the blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New Testament. Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator.
The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith…
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.
Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves”.
The answer to your question is there in bold in your own citation. If a priest takes away words but doesn’t change the meaning, then it is still valid, but obviously illicit and sinful. Such would be the case if a priest merely said “This is my Body” or “This is my Blood”.
So doesn’t “for all” have a different meaning then “for many”? The Council of Trent said
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”
But the meaning is “this is my blood” as long as the priest states that and intends what the Church intends he is confecting the Sacrament. It should cetrinaly not be left out, but it remains valid.
The Council of Trent stated that" The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God"
So why is it translated as"for you and for all" if the Holy Spirit guided the words to be “for you and for many?”
It’s discussing the Roman practice at the time, there had been, were at the time, and still are valid rites that do not use the exact same wording as the Roman Church. Thus, in St. Pius X’s Catechism it states:
5 Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?
A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: “This is My Body: This is My Blood.”
I think we’ve had this debate before. Jesus didn’t say “pro multis” because he wasn’t speaking latin. That being said, the Church has determined that the words “pro multis” are to be used. They should have been translated as for many. They were not. That is being corrected. Fortunately, the meaning was intended to be the same and the Sacrament is still valid.
It just seems to me that the Council of Trent went out of their way to explain the “form” for Consecration and “De Defictibus” made it clear that the form could not mean something else.