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.
Crusader13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really? I seem to recall comments about Abp. Bugnini and plenty of references to conspiracy theories. Maybe we are reading a different thread.
 
ProVobis said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was the first Mass I ever attended, and that wasn’t my impression at all.
 
gracepoole said:
Sketchy web sites? Michael Davies was a respected author.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about Michael Davies, other than that he was a strong supporter of the Lefebvrist movement. That said, there have been links provided in the thread to sites that I would definitely consider sketchy - so-called traditionalist sites that question the validity of the last ecumenical council, question the validity of the Mass, call the Pope a liar and question his motives, and so forth, all based on what I would consider thin and/or non-existent evidence.
 
TMC said:
Really? I seem to recall comments about Abp. Bugnini and plenty of references to conspiracy theories. Maybe we are reading a different thread.
Click to expand...
There was one comment about a Bugnini quote. He was not the focal point of the topic. As to what conspiracy theories you’re speaking of, I haven’t the slightest idea.

So yeah, you must be reading a different thread.
 
Crusader13 said:
There was one comment about a Bugnini quote. He was not the focal point of the topic. As to what conspiracy theories you’re speaking of, I haven’t the slightest idea.

So yeah, you must be reading a different thread.
Click to expand...
Really? Every thread questioning the ordinary form of the Mass goes pretty quickly to the same place – questioning the provenance of the Mass and the motives of those who instituted it, including linking to conspiracy theories about how supposedly nefarious clergymen conspired with protestants and masons and whomever to ruin the Mass. This thread got there pretty quick.
 
TMC said:
Really? Every thread questioning the ordinary form of the Mass goes pretty quickly to the same place – questioning the provenance of the Mass and the motives of those who instituted it, including linking to conspiracy theories about how supposedly nefarious clergymen conspired with protestants and masons and whomever to ruin the Mass. This thread got there pretty quick
Click to expand...
You need to go back and read the comments then, because how you arrived at that premise, I have no idea.

The OP asked a question about references to anything that describes who participated in the development of the current form of the Mass and if there was any truth to a rumor about Lutherans advising on the changes in the Mass.

I personally made several comments, including quotes from Michael Davie’s book, Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, which showed that through his research and interviews; he found that even though the Protestant Observers were not allowed to participate in the debates on the floor of the council; they did indeed have access to the same documents and were given opportunities during informal meetings with the periti. Where they were allowed to comment, criticize and make suggestions. The periti would then take whatever suggestions or criticisms they felt needed to be discussed, back with them when the debates resumed in the Consilium.

I simply presented what was shown to have taken place. I never commented on, nor did anyone else that I read, the motives of the periti and how they were looking to destroy the Mass and the Church. Nor did I ever offer any arguments that said the OF was invalid. I do believe that the changes adopted in the new rite, did favor a more protestant friendly form of the Mass, especially when compared to the Mass prior to Vatican II.

However, that is not the same as saying the OF is invalid and the nefarious clergy members conspired with Protestants and freemasons to ruin the Mass. That is your own presupposition when you approached this thread.
 
On page 28 of a paper by Christiaan W. Kappes in 2009 (at (PDF) Consilium and Vatican 2: Everything You Wanted to Know About Its Make-Up, Function, etc. (Replete with Graphs) | Christiaan Kappes - Academia.edu.Replete_with_Graphs ) it has:

“23 August 1966

On this date the Secretary of State gives permission for the establishment of official observers from non-Catholic ecclesial Christian communities. They will not have voting rights, or be official members, but will eventually be instrumental for consultation in a few restricted areas.”

A footnote to this is: “See BUGNINI, La riforma liturgica, 206-207, where they are listed as: Rev. Ronald Jasper; Rev. Massey Shepherd; Prof. Raymond George; Pastor Friedrick-Wilhem Künneth; Rev. Eugene Brand; Pastor Max Thurian.”

The English translation of this book is The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975) by Annibale Bugnini, published in 1990 by Liturgical Press, ISBN 0814615716.

On page 30 of the paper by Christiaan W. Kappes it has:

“6-14 October 1966

For the first time, the members of Christian, non-Catholic confessions were admitted to be observers at the general adunanze of the Consilium. The Observers were Professor Raymond George, on behalf of the World Council of Churches; Canon Ronald C. Jasper and Dr. Massey Hamilton Shepherd representing the Anglican Communion; Rev. Friedrich Wilhelm Künneth of the World Lutheran Federation, and Brother Max Thurian representing the Community Taizé.”

A footnote with the source for this is: “CONSILIUM AD EXSEQUENDAM CONSTITUTIONEM DE SACRA LITURGIA, VII Sessio Pleanaria “Consilii”, in Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 402.”
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
I don’t know much about Michael Davies, other than that he was a strong supporter of the Lefebvrist movement.
Click to expand...
I actually heard him speak twice at a conference at St. Mary’s in Rockford, an ICRSS chapel.

And I also attended a Lutheran service for my niece. It was very much like a Novus Ordo.

And I’ll leave before I get myself into more trouble. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. The typical High Church Anglican Mass is closer to our Tridentine Mass, except for language, than the current OF Mass.
 
A ‘Protestant liturgical service’ in the Church of England. St Silas the Martyr, London. Admittedly, this is at the more extreme end of Anglo-Catholic Tridentine style High Churchmanship in the CofE.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Even the low-church evangelical « mass » at my wife’s Anglican parish is celebrated as orientem.

And they receive communion kneeling at a communion rail…
 
Ioannes_L said:
There’s no such thing as Lefebvrist movement.
When the Church was invaded by the modernist heresy, strongly condemned by several popes, Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the few who stood by the true liturgy and the One True Faith during this revolution.
Click to expand...
So that whole schism, and the ex-communications, and the years of talks to try to bring the Lefebvrists back into full communion - all that did not happen? Or are you just objecting to the term “movement”? What would you prefer to call it?
 
TMC said:
40.png
Ioannes_L:
There’s no such thing as Lefebvrist movement.
When the Church was invaded by the modernist heresy, strongly condemned by several popes, Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the few who stood by the true liturgy and the One True Faith during this revolution.
Click to expand...
So that whole schism, and the ex-communications, and the years of talks to try to bring the Lefebvrists back into full communion - all that did not happen? Or are you just objecting to the term “movement”? What would you prefer to call it?
Click to expand...
There is no schism. There’s a formal definition for that term and it doesn’t apply to the SSPX.
 
OraLabora said:
Even the low-church evangelical « mass » at my wife’s Anglican parish is celebrated as orientem.

And they receive communion kneeling at a communion rail…
Click to expand...
Good to know. Have you attended other protestant services recently? Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian… I have and they’re very much like the OF.

You’ve described where you regularly attend Mass before and it sounds as though you’re truly blessed to have such a reverent place in which to worship. I’d be extremely leery, however, of assuming most US parishes are similar.
 
gracepoole said:
Good to know. Have you attended other protestant services recently? Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian… I have and they’re very much like the OF.
Click to expand...
No they’re as rare as having two popes where I live. United is common, but they’re well beyond anything you could say resembled Catholic liturgy (« our Father/Mother in heaven » and all that).
gracepoole said:
I’d be extremely leery, however, of assuming most US parishes are similar.
Click to expand...
It isn’t in Quebec parishes either, hence why avail myself of the local Benedictines, to the point of becoming one of their oblates. Our Gregorian schola though does sing in parishes, trying to make sure we don’t forget Gregorian chant.
 
gracepoole said:
There is no schism. There’s a formal definition for that term and it doesn’t apply to the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Are you sure, because I remember JPII referring to the Abp. Lefebvre’s actions as “schismatic.” So that seems like a schism. Either way, it is hard to deny the he and the priests that followed him had a movement (or group, or following, or whatever it may be called) that was not in full communion with the Church - which is why three Popes worked so hard to try to bring them back in.
 
Liturgy is simply ritual. Reverence is attitude. Anyone who thinks that if the EF was still the norm, everyone would be doing ok in this era, is just kidding himself.
 
I am not taking that as authoritative, but perhaps we are simply debating semantics. Abp. Lefebvre and his four followers were excommunicated for a schismatic act. Maybe being excommunicated for a schismatic act is not precisely the same as schism (although that leaves one wondering what would be schism), but surely we can all agree that Lefebvre and his four fellow excommunicants were separated from full communion with the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top