Church History: How did the Novus Ordo Mass develop under P. Paul VI?

[Ioannes_L]

Thus, although we had no direct “voice” on the Council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong right arms, the periti

Actually this is the full quote.

 

[Crusader13]

That’s fair. My concern is that many accounts of “Protestant influence” come from those with a very slanted, anti-VII agenda.

I’ll admit that there are those who are too emotionally driven by their disdain for VII, that they refuse to accept anything from it. However, I don’t believe it is fair to claim that any notion of protestant influence, is to be ignored or treated with contempt merely because the person is not an ardent supporter of VII.

Again, many who defend the OF of the Mass seem to defend it in its current state by arguing for it’s validity, but they do so without ever acknowledging its questionable origins. I for one, don’t see a problem with admitting that the new rites, may have been driven by ulterior motives that were not always in line with the authentic Catholic Traditions and practices.

In fact, VII was a point of contention almost from the time it was concluded and this phenomena of ant-VII sentiment was not something that just arose in the last 10 or 15 years. There were those who began noticing negative aspects of its implementation as early as the 70’s. So the controversy surrounding VII, especially with regards to the Liturgical Changes, is not without merit.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m trying to track down a rumor that Lutherans were part of the group that advised on the changes in the Mass.

There were Protestant observers on the commission, but Bugnini, in his book, makes it clear that they were only observers and took no active part in the deliberations.

The three-page section in this book dealing with the question of whether pollon (πολλων) should be translated as “for many” or “for all” is said to have influenced the new wording of the Eucharistic Prayer.

This issue is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the development of the new Mass; the “for many” vs “for all” debate is an ICEL translation issue. In other languages, it is correctly rendered as “for the multitudes”, for example in French it has always been “pour la multitude”.

In my opinion, neither “for many” nor “for all” is an accurate translation. A more precise translation would have been “for the masses”, or “for the multitude” or “multitudes”.

Actually this is the full quote.

Which would be appropriate in any ecumenical discussion. One supposes that for instance, they would have discussed proceedings over cocktails or coffee. But they most certainly had no official voice in the proceedings.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren—that is, for the Protestants.”

~Fr. Annibale Bugnini~

There it is! And that is coming from the main architect behind the new rites of the Mass.

That is an incomplete quote and totally out of context. The quote was in respect of an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, and pertained to the removing of offensive language from the 7th petition of the Good Friday prayers.

 

[phil19034]

In regards to the Protestant observers, we need to keep a few things in mind:

1. Since before Vatican I, there were a lot of Bishops & theologians who wanted to restore the mass to the way it was in the first 300 years of the Church. As more and more documents were discovered, the bishops learned more and more about the structure of the ancient mass.
2. The Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc also agreed to modify their worship to follow this new Mass. Many of the Old Catholics did the same thing.
3. There was a real thought that by making some adjustments to the Mass, it would eventually lead to reunification of with the Catholic Church. Remember, back then, the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc still didn’t have female clergy.

Now, MY GUESS, is that if the Bishops knew that the change to the Mass would NOT lead to mass conversions to the Catholic Church and knew how much confusion there would be after the new mass… I’m sure they would have taken their time more.

Now, I do think changes would have changed regardless. I feel the new Mass has made it easier to convert Africans & Asians.

However, I do think if they would have done a better job at rollout and kept a little Latin as required, it would have been a bit better of a roll out. Also, if they would have allowed parishes to keep at least 1 latin mass each Sunday, it would have been a better roll out too.

So in summary, I don’t think it was the new mass itself that was/is the issue. It was the rollout. The rollout was terrible.

 

[Genesis315]

Maybe, but honestly I don’t think the liturgical reformers needed their advice–for better or worse, they were going in the direction they did either way…

 

[twf]

Yeah the movement to reform the liturgy began long before VII. And in fact reforms were implemented under St Pius X and Pius XII.

 

[Crusader13]

There were Protestant observers on the commission, but Bugnini, in his book, makes it clear that they were only observers and took no active part in the deliberations.

Michael Davies in his book, shows that this quote by Bugnini, is contradictory to what was stated by Bishop Baum, who clearly expresses that the Protestant Observers were not just Observers with no influence.

Which would be appropriate in any ecumenical discussion. One supposes that for instance, they would have discussed proceedings over cocktails or coffee. But they most certainly had no official voice in the proceedings.

This is only relevant in that they couldn’t officially vote on the floor. Again their concerns and opinions were given directly to the periti themselves. Which means they merely used a “middle man” to get their concerns and suggestions heard. Which according to one of the Protestant Observers I quoted above, says you can see traces of the process in the documents themselves.

So, the argument that they had “no voice” on the floor does not mean they had “no voice” at all. They’re voice was heard and felt behind the scenes.

 

[Crusader13]

From Micheal Davie’s Book, Liturgical Time Bombs In Vatican II pp, 76-77:

The account given by Cardinal Baum, and the denials issued by Archbishop Bugnini and the Vatican Press Office, are clearly contradictory. In order to discover the truth, I wrote to one of the Observers, Canon Ronald Jasper. Before giving his reply, it is necessary to explain the manner in which the Consilium did its work. Firstly, there were the study sessions, during which the practical details of the reform were worked out, discussed and modified. Then there were the formal (plenary) meetings during which the draft services which had been compiled in the study sessions were debated and voted upon. In my letter to Canon Jasper, I explained that I was working upon a series of books on the liturgical reform and that I particularly wished to know whether the Observers had had a voice in the new rites of the Mass and Ordination.

 

[Crusader13]

continued:

In his reply, dated February 10, 1977, he explained that the Observers received all the documents from the drafters of the new services in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They were then present at the debates when the new services were presented by the experts and debated by the Consilium, but the Observers were not allowed to join the debate.

In the afternoon, however, they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the draft services, and at these meetings they were certainly allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. It was then for the periti to decide whether any of their points were worth taking up when the general debates in the Consilium were resumed. But, explained Canon Jasper, in conclusion, these informal meetings were complete free-for all, and there was a very frank exchange of views.

 

[runningdude]

Expertise in liturgical matters is not confined by denomination. However, the observering denominations actually worked to align their liturgy with ours, rather than the other way around.

 

[Crusader13]

Yeah the movement to reform the liturgy began long before VII. And in fact reforms were implemented under St Pius X and Pius XII.

Yes, the movement was well underway prior to VII. You can find the seeds already being planted as far back as the late 1800’s early 1900’s. St. Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XII, I feel, tried their best to quell any of the changes to Catholic Theology, which would negatively impact the Church as a whole, including the liturgy.

VII, was merely the vehicle used to implement many of the changes we see today. Some, I feel were questionable and not in keeping with our Catholic identity. I’m currently still looking for quotes about how the framers of VII, purposely used ambiguous language and changes, so as to interpret them at a later date, to how they best saw fit.

 

[OraLabora]

Michael Davies in his book

Michael Davies had an axe to grind. He was a Lefebvre sympathizer, at least liturgically. There is no shortage of intrigue and axes to grind in the Vatican, and no shortage of ability to find gossip and innuendo to back up one’s agenda.

So I will instead take Bugnini, warts and all, at face value from his book. What he said is on the record, “straight from the horse’s mouth” as it were. If you’re interested I could look up his full comment on this in his book, which I have full access to in the library where I work on Wednesdays (tomorrow). I did do it on this forum before, it’s probably out there somewhere.

That said, even if Protestants did discuss matters behind the scenes with their Catholic hosts, I see nothing nefarious in that. We are all, after all, Christians.

These are now events that happened nearly 60 years ago. There’s little point on continuing to dredge up hearsay from that period. Most interlocutors are dead and unable to be queried.

What we have is an official liturgy of the Church, which she has decreed is the normal form in which to celebrate the Eucharist, while generously making allowances for those who prefer the earlier form. That is good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone; to think otherwise is to work to divide an already wounded Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Here is my post from April last year with more extensive excerpts from Bugnini’s book on the role of Protestants at the council:

Question about the Confiteor at mass Traditional Catholicism

I found the book on our library’s shelves, in English no less. Of course in the short time I had access to it (about an hour total) I did not get a sense from Abp. Bugnini that he was trying to make the Mass “more Protestant”. Quite the opposite in fact. One footnote on page 199 in a chapter about Protestant observers states: Those in particular who were opposed to any reform of the Mass took advantage of the (Protestant) observer’s presence to claim that the reformed Mass was Protestant. …

 

[BartholomewB]

This issue is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the development of the new Mass; the “for many” vs “for all” debate is an ICEL translation issue. In other languages, it is correctly rendered as “for the multitudes”, for example in French it has always been “pour la multitude”.

Compare:
In Italian, “per voi e per tutti”:

Preghiera eucaristica IV - Wikipedia

it.wikipedia.org

In Spanish, “por vosotros y por todos los hombres”:

Cuaresma: Buscar, mirar y seguir a Jesús con los niños - Cipecar

La Cuaresma es un tiempo que nos prepara para celebrar la fiesta más grande del año: la Pascua, la Resurrección del Señor. Es un tiempo litúrgico, fuerte, para la Iglesia. “En este tiempo de conversión renovemos nuestra fe, saciemos nuestra sed con el “agua viva” de la esperanza y recibamos con...

cipecar.org

In Portuguese, “por vós e por todos”
http://www.catolicoorante.com.br/oeucaristicas.html#IV

 

[Crusader13]

I understand what you’re saying. I’m not attempting to argue that the origins of the OF should lead us to conclude that it is not valid. I do feel that bringing to light all aspects, good and bad, can help guide us in our understanding of the Mass.

I’ve tried to get my hands on everything I could from Michael Davies. It is true that he was not in favor of the Liturgical changes to the Mass and whether one agrees with him or not, his views are in keeping with the best aspects of our Catholic Faith and I’ve yet to read something where he maliciously misquotes or purposefully misrepresents an individual simply to further his views.

For example, in is book he quotes, what I feel is a view that many share in regard to the changes of the Mass and how they were set up to bring protestants in:

The ultra-evangelical Church of the Confession of Augsburg/Alsace-Lorraine issued a statement after the meeting of its Superior Consistory on December 8, 1973, permitting its member to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches: “We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers [of the Catholic liturgy], with which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice that we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice.” L’Eglise en Alsace, January 1974.

Whether or not that was the desired effect they were looking for, is open to debate. Nevertheless, it is what we got and even though most evangelicals would still never set foot in a Catholic church let alone attend a Mass, I think the intent was to show a more protestant friendly service, without the need to overemphasize our Catholic prayers and theology.

 

[OraLabora]

Still a translation issue. The AELF translation is “pour la multitude” in French. so the issue is with the individual conferences of Bishops, not the Mass itself.

 

[ProVobis]

This issue is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the development of the new Mass; the “for many” vs “for all” debate is an ICEL translation issue. In other languages, it is correctly rendered as “for the multitudes”, for example in French it has always been “pour la multitude”.

In my opinion, neither “for many” nor “for all” is an accurate translation. A more precise translation would have been “for the masses”, or “for the multitude” or “multitudes”.

So it appears there is a different theology depending on what language the Mass is said in. Also removal of all the silent prayers removes the many references dealing with sacrifice, the Holy of Holies, etc. even in the Latin OF.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m not sure it’s different theology. It depends on how the words are used and their subtleties in different languages.

Christ did come for all. And he did offer the sacraments to all. Whether we take Him up on it, or not, does not take away from His intent, that we may all be saved.

Multitudes, masses, or all… all convey that general meaning. I get the impression that many traditionalists are trying to say that He only came for some but neither “multitudes” nor “for all” implies that. Their interpretation of "for some* borders on Calvinist pre-election in fact…

 

[Crusader13]

I would say that some aspects of a protestant communion service were what they were aiming for, right or wrong.

Taken from Michael Davies in the same book mentioned above. Which shows differences in Mass vs Protestant Communion Service, prior to Vatican II.

1. The Catholic Mass – Latin. Protestant Communion Service – vernacular.
2. Catholic – much of the liturgy inaudible. Protestant – The entire service audible.
3. Catholic – only two readings. Protestant – generally three readings.
4. Catholic – no lay readers. Protestant – lay readers used.
5. Catholic – clearly performing solemn rites upon an altar facing the East. Protestant – a meal served upon a table, often facing the congregation. (The celebration of Mass facing the people is a pure form innovation and a complete break with Catholic tradition in both the Roman and Eastern Rites. It is not mandated, recommended or even mentioned in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
6. Catholic – kneeling throughout long periods of the service, particularly for the reception of Communion. Protestant – little kneeling; Communion often received standing.
7. Catholic – the people receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Protestant – Communion given in the hand.
8. Catholic – Communion received only under one kind. Protestant – Communion received under both kinds.
9. Catholic – frequent liturgical reference to the doctrines of the faith of sacrifice and Real Presence. Protestant – no reference whatsoever to the offering itself. Some references to the Body and Blood of Christ which could give the impression of belief in the Real Presence.

This is by no means exhaustive, but it does point out the changes made. What’s ironic, is that many evangelicals, no longer want to be called protestants and prefer non-denominational Christians and most of their services don’t even involve any form of liturgical worship. Instead we see a lot of music and bible sermons. And what do we see now in some of the OF services??? More christian contemporary music, more guitars and other instruments, more liturgical dancing and other forms of worship meant to mimic what we find in non-denomination churches.

 

[po18guy]

Flip side: Just because the Latin Mass was Catholic does not mean that it was perfect or without error. Declining mass attendance and varying degrees of lack of involvement/participation by the laity were both valid concerns.

As well, the further a culture or society is from Latin being the lingua franca, the more it loses meaning to the parishioner.

As to influences, there is not a single Protestant service that is a holy sacrifice. Not one, not in any way, shape or form. There is not a Protestant service that I am aware of which follows and logically extends the pattern of Synagogue worship - except those derived from the Catholic mass. So, what type of “influence” are we truly speaking of?

I would love to see the Novus Ordo broken down and the alleged Protestant-influenced portions clearly identified.