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

  • Thread starter Thread starter c1949
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are still plenty of references to sacrifice and oblation throughout the texts of the OF…
 
I am truly sorry, but I see zero connection. Christians are simply going to have al least some elements similar or identical. Rather, you should look to the Synagogue and examine their liturgy. Jewish converts have often described the (NO) mass as “Synagogue with Christ”

Is that something bad?

The mass is the mass. Rome has spoken. Disobedience objects. Disobedience on left, right or center is the problem plaguing the Church - not this language or that, not facing this way or that.
 
It’s funny. Voris’ point from the Anglican observer at Vatican II about the Ordinary Form looking like it’s from an Anglican Book of Common Prayer is frankly a thought I had when I first experienced an Anglican mass. They’re nearly indistinguishable to those not paying close attention. The parallels are uncanny despite the disparate development of the two liturgies.
 
po18guy said:
The mass is the mass. Rome has spoken. Disobedience objects. Disobedience on left, right or center is the problem plaguing the Church - not this language or that, not facing this way or that.
Click to expand...
If you cannot see the connections, that is fine. I cannot force you or anyone else to accept my conclusions. I feel the changes were done with an intent to change the Mass in such a way as to make it more acceptable to those they wished to convert and to those who felt some changes were necessary. I also believe that the changes that were implemented, were not what many of the clergy who signed off on them, had expected.

There are many problems facing the Church today and disobedience cannot be generalized in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from those who are seeking clarification and understanding about a matter that has not produced good fruit. I’ve seen similar practices used by those within the Watchtower, that will freely admit that they are encouraged to ask any questions they want, but once an answer has been given, any further attempt to question the matter is now dubbed “disobedience”.

The OF is valid and is the predominantly celebrated form used today, of that there is no argument. Yet, we who question its origins and the efficacy of the changes made, should in no way be silenced by the threat of disobedience and made to feel like overzealous revolutionaries, seeking to overthrow the hierarchy.

I agree with Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, who summed up the crisis we are facing today quite nicely.
“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)
Click to expand...
 
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s wrong, it’s just different.
 
It is through EP1; I’m not sure about the others.

The reference to Abel. Abraham, Melchisedech, etc makes it more clear IMO.
 
Last edited:
They’re there. Eucharistic Prayer III clearly references the prophesy of Malachi regarding a pure sacrifice being offered in every place.
The propers of the day often reference sacrifice.
After the offertory we all say “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”

Yes, some of the poetic sacrificial language is gone, but there are still plenty of references.
 
TMC said:
For those that have not been around here that long,
Click to expand...
Slap down noted. Hence why up until this point in the discussion I have refrained from expressing my opinion and thoughts.

Links posted were not obligatory reading, only what I have read and thought may have been of interest to some others reading this thread, as these were opinion pieces written by others on the topic.

Personally I think some things did occur back then, but at the end of the day whether there was any underhandedness hardly matters now because the Pope did sign off on it, and no Pope since then has declared the Ordinary Form of the Mass invalid - which would have been done if it was truly invalid.
To me it is all historically interesting.
God bless.
 
CRV said:
Slap down noted. Hence why up until this point in the discussion I have refrained from expressing my opinion and thoughts.

Links posted were not obligatory reading, only what I have read and thought may have been of interest to some others reading this thread, as these were opinion pieces written by others on the topic.

Personally I think some things did occur back then , but at the end of the day whether there was any underhandedness hardly matters now because the Pope did sign off on it , and no Pope since then has declared the Ordinary Form of the Mass invalid - which would have been done if it was truly invalid.
To me it is all historically interesting.
God bless.
Click to expand...
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. What sometimes concerns me is that some posters here (not saying you) seem intent on promoting a pretty fringe and conspiracy-oriented view, with an apparent motive of drumming up support for their “side” of an intra-Church power struggle.

Note - I am NOT at all opposed to questioning the Church or calling out issues in the Church, as any review of my long posting history here will show. What I am opposed to is using questionable materials to recruit unwitting foot soldiers for one side of a fight most Catholics don’t want any part of.

As I said before, I encourage inquiring minds to seek out reliable historical and other materials.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Ten years ago these sprouted up like weeds, but were quickly shut down. For those that have not been around here that long, I recommend that you ignore the conspiratorial whispers (and shouts) that the Church has been corrupted by the Lutherans/Protestants/Masons/Aliens/Whatever, including the veiled (and not so veiled) aspersions cast on now long dead servants of the Church. There is plenty of real scholarship and history out there on the Church. Don’t rely on articles posted on sketchy websites.
Click to expand...
I wish there were a way to have this automatically posted as a reply whenever there’s a new post mentioning Archbishop Bugnini. 🤔
 
OraLabora said:
Michael Davies had an axe to grind. He was a Lefebvre sympathizer, at least liturgically.
Click to expand...
That seems unfair. Just because someone sympathized/sympathizes with Lefebvre doesn’t mean his or her investigations into the history of the Mass are faulty. I have tremendous respect for Davies even if I don’t agree with everything he wrote.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Another Abp. Bugnini conspiracy thread. That’s two in a week!

Ten years ago these sprouted up like weeds, but were quickly shut down. For those that have not been around here that long, I recommend that you ignore the conspiratorial whispers (and shouts) that the Church has been corrupted by the Lutherans/Protestants/Masons/Aliens/Whatever, including the veiled (and not so veiled) aspersions cast on now long dead servants of the Church. There is plenty of real scholarship and history out there on the Church. Don’t rely on articles posted on sketchy websites.
Click to expand...
Nothing in what you just said had anything to do with the OP’s question nor did any of the subsequent comments. This had nothing to do with aliens, conspiracy theories, Bugnini or whatever else you wanted to drum up in order to dismiss comments with valid concerns.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Another Abp. Bugnini conspiracy thread. That’s two in a week!

Ten years ago these sprouted up like weeds, but were quickly shut down. For those that have not been around here that long, I recommend that you ignore the conspiratorial whispers (and shouts) that the Church has been corrupted by the Lutherans/Protestants/Masons/Aliens/Whatever, including the veiled (and not so veiled) aspersions cast on now long dead servants of the Church. There is plenty of real scholarship and history out there on the Church. Don’t rely on articles posted on sketchy websites.
Click to expand...
Sketchy web sites? Michael Davies was a respected author.
 
I’m sorry but had the OF Mass been the first Mass I ever attended, I would conclude it’s all about a Meal more than anything else. But that’s me.
 
True but it should be explained according to the Council of Trent Session 22.
 
Last edited:
c1949 said:
I’m trying to track down a rumor that Lutherans were part of the group that advised on the changes in the Mass.
Click to expand...
A rumor?? Seriously?

You’ll probably have to go pretty far down the rabbit hole to get to the bottom of that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top