Are we getting too friendly with the Protestants?

[Thomas58]

I think the changes in the new Novus Ordo Mass did a little more than add a little “civility” in order to not offend Protestants.

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:“The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” - Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.

When the Protestants split from the Catholic Church in England in the 16th century, they changed the Mass to reflect their heretical beliefs. The altars were replaced by tables. Latin was replaced by English. Statues and icons were removed from the churches. The Last Gospel and the Confiteor were abolished. “Communion” was distributed in the hand. Mass was said out loud and facing the Congregation. Traditional music was discarded and replaced with new music. Many English Catholics were martyred for refusing to participate in a Protestant “Mass” that in many ways closely resembled the Novus Ordo Mass of today.

Thomas

 

[Lepanto]

The original Protestants = formal heretics.

Protestants since the Reformation who don’t know any better = material heretics.

There is a difference.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Why would any Catholic worry whether our Mass offends Protestants - the majority of 'em never attend one!

Agreed and they don’t worry that their services that call us names offend us.

 

[rwoehmke]

That’s odd, when my wife converted from Presbyterian, she was “conditionally baptized” and presented with a baptismal certificate. The same is true at my old parish for the RCIA candidates. I wonder why they wouldn’t be included in the stats?

Been working in our RCIA program for about 20 years now. Most mainline protestants(if you will) come “pre-baptized” and can present evidence of the same. If no written evidence is available we have them Baptized conditionally. There are a few Faiths, notably the Mormons and perhaps JWs whose Baptisms are not recognized as valid. There are a few who have never been baptized in any way shape or form.

As far as the statistics go, I really don’t know enough to have an opinion.

 

[Caesar]

There is a false idea of Ecumenism being taught to many Catholics that suggests that Catholicism is to be “merged” with the protestant sects. This is not true. The only real solution to the division is to bring the protestants into full communion with Rome through conversion, not through changing our traditions and neglecting our doctrines in order to pacify them.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it is appropriate here as well. This is from Dietrich von Hildebrand:

"I had looked forward to Jesuit Father John A. Hardon’s *Catholic Catechism *in the hope that it would be not only faithful to Catholic Dogma, but also filled with an authentic Catholic ethos.

…The architects of Church policy have tried to eliminate everything that might possibly separate us from the Protestants. Father Hardon even notes this with approval in that part of his “Catechism” dealing with ecumenism. One wonders why he does not link this very ecumenism with the changes in the liturgy. Here are his words, page 243: “On the practical level this means that Catholics should avoid any words, judgments or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do. Positively, they should engage in dialogue with separated brethren through discussion, co-operative action, and corporate prayer. Such dialogue presumes study and the desire to learn how the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants worship, what they believe, and how their allegiance to Christ has affected their lives.” The above passage is sad to contemplate. Here is a Roman Catholic Catechism whose author certainly intends to oppose liberal and progressive trends and to be strictly orthodox. Yet he says that Catholics must avoid words, judgments and actions which do not correspond to what other Christians believe. This attitude reflects not ecumenism, but rather the fatal disease which I call “ecumenitis”. Let us recall the recent Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, Australia. Cardinal Knox, anticipating the suggestion of Father Hardon, purposely omitted the great Eucharistic procession so as not to offend the Protestants he had invited to participate. Indeed, eliminating the procession was one of the conditions of their presence at the Congress! Can we fairly call this consistent with genuine ecumenism? If we have real Christian love for our Protestant brethren, we must have the desire to see them find the one, true, authentic Christian faith. True love can only seek to have the individual Protestant convert to Catholicism. During my long life I have met innumerable ardent converts from Protestantism to Catholicism. (I am myself a convert, though from only a weak and merely formal Protestantism). But not a single convert I have known was ever converted by public dialogues between Catholics and Protestants; still less by Catholics who tried to make any compromises with Protestantism."

fatimacrusader.com/cr44/cr44pg18.asp

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This link should help clarify that the Mass has not been Protestantized:

jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm#described

 

[AJV]

It’s true. The following is a quote from Annibali Bugnini, as recorded in L’Osservatore Romano:

Bugnini: “We must strip from our Catholic prayer books and from the Catholic Liturgy everything that can be a shadow of a stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” [L’Osservatore Romano, 19/3/65].

Here’s another quote of interest…

L’Osservatore Romano: “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church. (October 13, 1967)”

One small step for ecumenism… one giant leap for the great apostasy.

I know for sure that the first one one is VERY inaccurate because I have the article in question (in Italian) in front of me. And knowing that makes the second one more suspicious, especially since the Lutheran liturgy (a) does not have an set forms of preparation which which incorporated in various stages in the schemas for the NO at the time (b) most have no Eucharistic Prayer.

I mean, look at it one way is that the Concilium hadn’t completely lost their senses (even if they were Modernists) . If they wrote something so blatant (and that too in L Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Vatican) the outcry at the time would have been too great and their heads would have rolled. Just think about how wrongly (and rightly) reported issues often forced the Concilium in the early stages to change tack or issue hasty clarifications.

Lorazione 7a reca il titolo: «Per l’unità dei cristiani» (non «della Chiesa»), che è stata sempre una). Non si parla più di «eretici» e «scismatici», ma di «tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo». Il testo completo dice:

…Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel .(phrase from prayer)… della settima orazione? E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.

The quote as you can see, is based on on the underlined part- and kind-of separated from the context (the 7th oration of Holy Week) that he was talking about.

 

[AJV]

It’s true. The following is a quote from Annibali Bugnini, as recorded in L’Osservatore Romano:

Bugnini: “We must strip from our Catholic prayer books and from the Catholic Liturgy everything that can be a shadow of a stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” [L’Osservatore Romano, 19/3/65].

Here’s another quote of interest…

L’Osservatore Romano: “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church. (October 13, 1967)”

One small step for ecumenism… one giant leap for the great apostasy.

How did that get past Paul VI?

Godd question, no?

I know for sure that the first one one is VERY inaccurate because I have the article in question (in Italian) in front of me. And knowing that makes the second one more suspicious, especially since the Lutheran liturgy (a) does not have an set forms of preparation which which incorporated in various stages in the schemas for the NO at the time (b) most have no Eucharistic Prayer.

I mean, look at it one way is that the Concilium hadn’t completely lost their senses (even if they were Modernists) . If they wrote something so blatant (and that too in L Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Vatican) the outcry at the time would have been too great and their heads would have rolled. Just think about how wrongly (and rightly) reported issues often forced the Concilium in the early stages to change tack or issue hasty clarifications.

L’ orazione 7a reca il titolo: «Per l’unità dei cristiani» (non «della Chiesa»), che è stata sempre una). Non si parla più di «eretici» e «scismatici», ma di «tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo». Il testo completo dice:

Preghiamo per tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo: – O Signore Dio nostro, concede che essi, – seguendo la verità, – siano riuniti e custoditi nell’unica tua Chiesa…(the text of the prayer)

…Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel .(phrase from prayer)… della settima orazione? E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.

The quote as you can see, is based on on the underlined part- and kind-of separated from the context (the change in the 7th oration of Holy Week from “heretics and schismatics” to “all our brothers who believe in Christ” ) that he was talking about. Since he has referred to both “heretics and schismatics” he is not only talking of the Protestants but of the Orthodox also.

This is why I’m a tad suspicious of the quotes that are found over the Internet because they can even cite things upto the page number but the quote will be faulty.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

How can a bit of understanding each other be wrong, oh each side has to give a little, isnt that the beggining of the end of a arguement, the ablity to understand the other one?

Other than that, I hope it gets too friendly, otherwise Heaven’s going to be a weird place, what with everyone not talking and so forth.

 

[AJV]

I think the changes in the new Novus Ordo Mass did a little more than add a little “civility” in order to not offend Protestants.

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:“The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” - Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.

I feel it would be more believable if the Pauline Mass actually resembled a Reformed or Presbyterian liturgy of the period. Curiously enough it didn’t. In many ways it still doesn’t- for example, quite a few of the Presbyterians retain “Take eat, this is etc.” and “Take drink” at the distribution of communion.

When the Protestants split from the Catholic Church in England in the 16th century, they changed the Mass to reflect their heretical beliefs. The altars were replaced by tables. Latin was replaced by English. Statues and icons were removed from the churches. The Last Gospel and the Confiteor were abolished. “Communion” was distributed in the hand. Mass was said out loud and facing the Congregation. Traditional music was discarded and replaced with new music. Many English Catholics were martyred for refusing to participate in a Protestant “Mass” that in many ways closely resembled the Novus Ordo Mass of today.

I see that all the English martyrs (canonised or beatified) in the church calendar were primarily in the reign of Edward VI or Elizabeth I and thus the II and III Prayerbooks. Here is the Communion Office of Edward VI and here is the one of Elizabeth I. Could you please explain how exactly does the NO resemble in your view? As far as I can see, not even the order of the prayers is same. Besides the wording of certain crucial prayers is different

 

[Cat]

Umm…ex-evangelical Protestant here.

I guarantee that many Protestants find the NO Mass terribly offensive. I know Protestants who refuse to attend an NO.

Watching the people genuflect will offend evangelicals, who believe that the people are bowing before an idol.

Evangelicals find the crucifix used in the Processional offensive, as Christ is no longer on the cross.

The Sign of the Cross is offensive to evangelicals. Not sure why, as Chuck Colson declared it “OK” in his wonderful book, Being the Body. But a lot of evangelicals find Chuck Colson “too liberal” because of his role in co-founding the organization, Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

The Confiteor is offensive because evangelicals don’t believe in corporate confession or that a priest can absolve sins. Also, the prayer is addressed to Mary and all the saints is an “abomination” because the Bible forbids praying to the dead.

Evangelicals find ALL the prayers said during NO offensive because they come from a “book,” not from the priest’s heart and mind.

Evangelicals find the readings offensive because the Bible used has the “apocryphal” books, and this makes it a false translation. If a reading happens to be from one of these books, the evangelical doesn’t consider it the Word of God.

Add to that the fact that the readings come out of a “book,” not the real Bible. Evangelicals are very offended that Catholics do not bring their own Bibles, well-marked and obviously used on a daily basis.

The homilies are incredibly offensive to evangelicals because of their shortness and because often (not always) they are delivered rather poorly. Evangelicals expect a sermon of at least 45 minutes, with constant reference to the Scripture.

The homily will also be offensive if the priest chooses to teach about Catholic doctrines.

And the main reason the homily will be offensive is because it doesn’t “present the Gospel” and “offer an opportunity for the people to pray the Sinner’s Prayer and get saved.” Evangelicals believe that every church meeting should be used as an opportunity to lead people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Personal Savior.

The creed is vaguely familiar, but evangelicals do not believe in a creedal religion. They believe that creeds are “rituals” or “works of man.”

The prayers will again be offensive to the evangelical because of praying FOR the dead. Also, many Catholic prayers mention “justice,” a concept that evangelicals often find “liberal.”

When it comes time for the Our Father (the Lord’s Prayer), evangelicals will be offended because the priest interrupts the prayer to add a “prayer of man.” Also, evangelicals will wonder why the congregation omits the “His is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory” until the end of the prayer.

And finally, the Eucharist. It is at this point that many evangelicals will get up and walk out because they believe that the priest is “re-sacrificing” Jesus. They believe that the doctrine of transubstantiantion is utter falsehood, and they believe that our worship of a “wafer” is idolatry.

IF the NO includes Holy Water or incense or another sacramental, the evangelical will be offended over the use of meaningless ritual and attaching spiritual meaning to material objects.

I haven’t mentioned that the evangelical is offended just by walking in the door of the Catholic sanctuary. Even the most contemporary Catholic Churches include lots of items that the evangelical is suspicious of, especially the crucifix, any other images, and the votive candles.

And finally, the music. Many evangelicals will be horribly offended by the fact that the Catholics don’t SING OUT! To an evangelical, someone who is truly a Christian will have a song in their hearts and on their lips, and there will be joy in music, not the “deadness” that they see in Catholic congregational singing.

If the evangelical is also a Pentecostal, he will be offended because the people don’t raise their hands.

If Latin is used, the evangelical will probably think it’s cool, but then think, “Dead language means dead church.”

Some evangelicals will often be offended by crying children, too. They will wonder why the parents don’t leave those distracting children in the nursery.

I speak from expert experience. I was 47 years an evangelical, and most of my friends and relatives are still evangelical Protestants. I still read quite a few evangelical print media. I speak the truth.

You have nothing to fear. The NO Mass is very very far away from the evangelical Protestant worship service.

 

[AJV]

I see that all the English martyrs (canonised or beatified) in the church calendar were primarily in the reign of Edward VI or Elizabeth I and thus the II and III Prayerbooks.

I should rephrase that to the latter part of Edward VI’s reign and also note that there were martyrs during Henry VIII though the Mass then was not the reason.

 

[guanophore]

I mean, once they were called heretics, now they are “Seperated Brothers”. I’ve even heard people say that the Novus Ordo was created in such a way as to not offend any Protestants, (I have no idea if this is true). Also, this picture is bothering me immensely…

They were called heretics since they knew the right teaching of Jesus and abandoned it. Nowadays, most of our Protestant brethren have NO CLUE where their beliefs came from. They think they are “bible christians” but don’t even know the origin of the Bible. It is not their fault. You can’t call someone a heretic who never knew orthodoxy in the first place. Many of them honestly believe we have “added” books to the bible, and that the Church teachings contradict the bible, and that the church tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people.

I have heard this accusation about the Novus Ordo too, and some Masses I have attended seem to have no different character than protestants services, sadly. However, I do not agree that it was done in any way to placate the Protestants. The laity was yearning for a more participatory and meaningful experience, and this was a solution.

I think both Catholics and Protestants better get over being so disturbed by one another. If we do end up sharing eternity with one another (and only God will decide that) we will need to learn to get along.

 

[guanophore]

i am quite proud of my protestant background. it has thought me to love the bible, to love others and evanglize, above all to be GENUIENE! i know we cant judge others hearts but the most depressing thing about coming into the Church is seeing so many catholics who do not practice or even believe what their faith teaches. but back to being friendly… i wish catholics were friendlier. i would have considered the catholic church much sooner if someone would have invited me to church with them or would have been more willing to talk about their faith with me but alas protestants seem to have cornered the market on being bold evangalists…or have they?

I agree with you 100% on this. My sojourn into PRotestant realms taught me these things as well, and one other I value greatly: conversational prayer. Before I lapsed, I only knew memorized prayers, and I could not open my mouth to pray spontaneously.

I know what you mean about Catholics. Sometime we seem so caught up in our own little worlds. I found the Byzanitine parish so much warmer - probably because the only members of it are family and friends. They don’t evangelize either! I went to a Roman Mass yesterday morning and there were a couple hundred folks. They would not sing, interact, or otherwise do anything (like verbal responses) that indicated they were involved in the mass. The music leader got up and pleaded with them to sing!

 

[ChadS]

Umm…ex-evangelical Protestant here.

I guarantee that many Protestants find the NO Mass terribly offensive. I know Protestants who refuse to attend an NO.

Watching the people genuflect will offend evangelicals, who believe that the people are bowing before an idol.

Evangelicals find the crucifix used in the Processional offensive, as Christ is no longer on the cross.

The Sign of the Cross is offensive to evangelicals. Not sure why, as Chuck Colson declared it “OK” in his wonderful book, Being the Body. But a lot of evangelicals find Chuck Colson “too liberal” because of his role in co-founding the organization, Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

The Confiteor is offensive because evangelicals don’t believe in corporate confession or that a priest can absolve sins. Also, the prayer is addressed to Mary and all the saints is an “abomination” because the Bible forbids praying to the dead.

Evangelicals find ALL the prayers said during NO offensive because they come from a “book,” not from the priest’s heart and mind.

Evangelicals find the readings offensive because the Bible used has the “apocryphal” books, and this makes it a false translation. If a reading happens to be from one of these books, the evangelical doesn’t consider it the Word of God.

Add to that the fact that the readings come out of a “book,” not the real Bible. Evangelicals are very offended that Catholics do not bring their own Bibles, well-marked and obviously used on a daily basis.

The homilies are incredibly offensive to evangelicals because of their shortness and because often (not always) they are delivered rather poorly. Evangelicals expect a sermon of at least 45 minutes, with constant reference to the Scripture.

. . .

And the main reason the homily will be offensive is because it doesn’t “present the Gospel” and “offer an opportunity for the people to pray the Sinner’s Prayer and get saved.” Evangelicals believe that every church meeting should be used as an opportunity to lead people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Personal Savior.

The creed is vaguely familiar, but evangelicals do not believe in a creedal religion. They believe that creeds are “rituals” or “works of man.”

The prayers will again be offensive to the evangelical because of praying FOR the dead. Also, many Catholic prayers mention “justice,” a concept that evangelicals often find “liberal.”

When it comes time for the Our Father (the Lord’s Prayer), evangelicals will be offended because the priest interrupts the prayer to add a “prayer of man.” Also, evangelicals will wonder why the congregation omits the “His is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory” until the end of the prayer.

And finally, the Eucharist. It is at this point that many evangelicals will get up and walk out because they believe that the priest is “re-sacrificing” Jesus. They believe that the doctrine of transubstantiantion is utter falsehood, and they believe that our worship of a “wafer” is idolatry.

IF the NO includes Holy Water or incense or another sacramental, the evangelical will be offended over the use of meaningless ritual and attaching spiritual meaning to material objects.

I haven’t mentioned that the evangelical is offended just by walking in the door of the Catholic sanctuary. Even the most contemporary Catholic Churches include lots of items that the evangelical is suspicious of, especially the crucifix, any other images, and the votive candles.

. . .

If the evangelical is also a Pentecostal, he will be offended because the people don’t raise their hands.

If Latin is used, the evangelical will probably think it’s cool, but then think, “Dead language means dead church.”

Some evangelicals will often be offended by crying children, too. They will wonder why the parents don’t leave those distracting children in the nursery.

I speak from expert experience. I was 47 years an evangelical, and most of my friends and relatives are still evangelical Protestants. I still read quite a few evangelical print media. I speak the truth.

You have nothing to fear. The NO Mass is very very far away from the evangelical Protestant worship service.

Cat,

I converted from a mainline Protestant denomination and I think most of your observations are right on. I remember when our pastor would try to introduce something new into the worship service grumbling would begin. It could be something as simple as carrying a Bible or Gospel book in during the procession or the fact that we went from receiving communion quarterly to monthly. People would invariably ask: “What’re we becoming, Catholic?” The fact that the Mass is said in English is of little comfort to Protestants. They still have much about Catholic worship and especially Catholic theology they disagree with and abhor.

ChadS

 

[Sr_Sally]

And knowing that makes the second one more suspicious, especially since the Lutheran liturgy (a) does not have an set forms of preparation which which incorporated in various stages in the schemas for the NO at the time (b) most have no Eucharistic Prayer.

Having recently come from a Lutheran ‘ecclesiastic community’, I can also say that the Lutheran liturgy is not ‘exactly like the Norvus Ordo’. In fact, the Lutheran’s do not place the Our Father in the middle of the consecration, which many on this forum don’t like–so perhaps we should be more like the Lutherans, eh?

But we also have to remember that Lutherans (and Anglicans) have always had a very similar liturgy to ours. They simply didn’t change too much when they split from the Catholic church. And, of course, over the years they have had their own liturgical reforms, changes, upgrades, whatever. There are plenty of internal battles raging in the Lutheran and Anglican communities about traditional vs modern liturgies. I don’t think they are worried about sabotaging us!

 

[MrS]

I’m not saying that the old Latin mass was "offensive " to anyone, its just that the new liturgy is not.

Well it certainly is to many Catholics

.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Umm…ex-evangelical Protestant here…

I haven’t mentioned that the evangelical is offended just by walking in the door of the Catholic sanctuary. Even the most contemporary Catholic Churches include lots of items that the evangelical is suspicious of, especially the crucifix, any other images, and the votive candles.

And finally, the music. Many evangelicals will be horribly offended by the fact that the Catholics don’t SING OUT! To an evangelical, someone who is truly a Christian will have a song in their hearts and on their lips, and there will be joy in music, not the “deadness” that they see in Catholic congregational singing.

If the evangelical is also a Pentecostal, he will be offended because the people don’t raise their hands.

Some evangelicals will often be offended by crying children, too. They will wonder why the parents don’t leave those distracting children in the nursery.

I speak from expert experience. I was 47 years an evangelical, and most of my friends and relatives are still evangelical Protestants. I still read quite a few evangelical print media. I speak the truth.

You have nothing to fear. The NO Mass is very very far away from the evangelical Protestant worship service.

Bare in mind that Evangelicalism in its current form and force is very much “Protestantism 2.0”. The face of Protestantism dealt with by the council fathers was much more Anglican/Lutheran/Liturgical…

In all irony, the efforts made in ecumenical endeavors with the “mainliners” seem to have not been, perhaps, the best use of Catholic time. For all our overtures at greater understanding two things happened to make this seem at times almost futile: (1) Anglicans and Lutherans unilaterally moved away from disciplines and teaching that were generally similar and (2) (likely as a result of #1) they began to shrink and become far less significant “movers” in the non-Catholic Christian world. European Anglicanism and Lutheranism is a mere shell of what it was 45 years ago. Protestants formerly of those communities who are still vibrant in the practice of their faith, are more likely found in Evangelical type communities today.

I am not a fan of going back to the days when were were encouraged to not talk to each other… But a little less focus or concearn on appealing to non-Catholic communities might be wise.

 

[stmaria]

This link should help clarify that the Mass has not been Protestantized:

jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm#described

This is from your link
“The Council of Trent recognized that the words “For you and for many” are not found in that form in the New Testament. Those words were “joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 226).”

The author admits that the words “For you and for many” were "joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God” So why was it changed? Doesn’t that make it the will of Christ? I don’t recall Pope Paul saying that the translation to “for all” was under the guidance of the Spirit of God.

Read the Luther Catechism iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt
and you will also notice that Luther removed the words “Mystery of Faith” and so did Bugnini and the reformers. Luther added the words, “which is given up for you” and so did the reformers. Luther changed “For you and for many” and so did the reformers. Just a coincedence?

Your link quotes Father Jungmann about his view of the Novus Ordo. Father Jungmann is listed in Bugnini’s book Reform of the Liturgy as a member of the Consilium.He was one of the reformers. Not exactly a non-biased view.

Your link tries to imply that Cardinal Ottaviani approved of the Novus Ordo. It is ambiguous at best.

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

The point of the thread is valid. The Novus Ordo was made to be LESS offensive to Protestants than the LATIN Mass was. It was all about ecumenism. The Novus Ordo more resembles the Mass of Luther and Cramner with the changing of the words of Consecration, communion in the hand, priest facing the people, all vernacular etc.

The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Bishop William Dushak from the floor of the Vatican II council:
PG 37-38 “ “My idea is to introduce an ecumenical Mass, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable…It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people….this ecumenical Mass… is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths in order to provide a basis of common worship by all Christians” When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it”
Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on November 6 1962 only three weeks after the Council began and five years before the Novus Ordo was shown to the Synod of Bishops for the first time.