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

[twf]

Yes, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, having been raised evangelical Protestant, the typical evangelical or Pentecostal service is not even remotely close to the OF. When I first started attending Mass as a teen convert to Catholicism, the OF, vernacular, chant free, incense free Mass in my small town parish struck me as a mystical, mysterious, out of this world sacrifice…

I was used to this format:
20-30 minutes of Praise & Worship style music - people may or may not wave their hands and/or sway
Free form opening prayer
45 minute sermon, with a few Bible verses peppered throughout
Free form closing prayer
Closing hymn or two

Even the basic structure of the OF Mass was completely foreign to me. Of course the services of liturgical Protestant churches, such as Lutherans and Anglicans, will be much closer to the OF…

 

[Crusader13]

I agree with the first part. I’m sure there where people, prior to VII, who just attended Mass and went through the motions, same as today.

But I think an argument can be made that perhaps some of the changes to the Mass, were questionable, at least in terms of whether or not they were truly for the “good” of the Church.

The removal of the Last Gospel for example, doesn’t strike me as a change that one can say truly benefited the church and the laity as a whole.

 

[OraLabora]

The removal of the Last Gospel for example, doesn’t strike me as a change that one can say truly benefited the church and the laity as a whole.

Nor do I think it harmed them; Sunday Mass now has a third reading for instance, and while exposure to the psalms is not greater (most of the Propers are from the psalms, and other Bible verses), they are in a more understandable format now, not lost in some complex melismas that were in what was to most an unfamiliar language.

 

[Crusader13]

Nor do I think it harmed them; Sunday Mass now has a third reading for instance, and while exposure to the psalms is not greater (most of the Propers are from the psalms, and other Bible verses), they are in a more understandable format now, not lost in some complex melismas that were in what was to most an unfamiliar language.

You’re quite right. I’ve always been of the opinion that we should acknowledge both the good and the bad when discussing the changes that took place.

When speaking of the example that I gave above, the reading of the Last Gospel, if we are to put this, and other such examples of changes made, into the "well it was neither good nor harmful category. Then I think it’s only fair that we are allowed to ask, “Then why the need for the changes?”

If the proponents of said changes can honestly concede that said changes, had no measurable influence, in either the positive or negative, then what can they point to, to say “we needed these changes because…”

 

[Dovekin]

The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 34

The Last Gospel was an accretion, something that was added to the mass as it developed. It has no obvious purpose or connection to the rest of the service. This violates the idea of “noble simplicity.”

 

[ProVobis]

Anyone who thinks that if the EF was still the norm,

If it were the norm, no doubt it would have undergone some changes since 1962. So maybe we can thank the OF for preserving the EF.?Just sayin.

 

[OraLabora]

If it were the norm, no doubt it would have undergone some changes since 1962.

I would hope so.

 

[OraLabora]

This discussion is trying to justify reforms that may or may not have worked and you trying to cover your trail the best you can do.

No. As a Roman Catholic I believe in the authority of the Holy Father and the Magisterium to regulate the liturgy. And as a Benedictine Roman Catholic I am duty-bound, by my oblate promise, to obey the Holy Father and Magisterium on all matters, including liturgy, and I am duty bound to the thoughtful implementation of whatever liturgy, in her wisdom, the Church elects as her own.

All popes since the Council, including Benedict XVI have upheld that the liturgy of Paul VI is the ordinary form of the liturgy, that is the one that is used in the majority of circumstances. That is what I am defending. Generously, Benedict XVI allowed for the wider application of the older liturgy as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Both thus have their application in the Church. Among Benedictines, both are in common use this day. My abbots have chosen, since the Council, to use the Ordinary form for the Mass, in a thoughtful and reverent manner. I defend their right to do so, and our use of the Paul VI liturgy clearly demonstrates its validity, noble simplicity and beauty, and the ability to celebrate it with deep reverence.

 

[TMC]

Why do you people lie to yourself, you know who you are, but can’t admit to it? The Orthodox Christians know who you are. We separate all of your factions out Traditionalists we call Roman Catholics, your group we call Novus Ordo catholics and the other we call liberal or modernist catholics. I’m not trying to offend anyone but just state the truth here. You say or do anything in your Church you want, it’s your Church, it’s no skin off our noses. This discussion is trying to justify reforms that may or may not have worked and you trying to cover your trail the best you can do. I keep reading all that is said but I must admit it I’m amused by all of this… Mr. Michael Voris is right in what he said, if you’re not going to listen to anyone, you should listen to him…

Honestly, this may be the most ironic post I have seen here in a while, and that is saying something. The fact is that there is a group of people who want to call themselves Roman Catholic while refusing to follow the teachings of the Church, but its not those you derisively call “Novus Ordo” Catholics, or others call “Councilar Catholics.” Those that reject the teachings of the last Ecumenical Council and the last several Popes are those that are putting their own opinions above the teaching of the Church. I agree with you that those people are entitled to do that, and to worship God however they please. But they should not be telling those that that follow the actual teachings of the Church that the so-called “Traditionalists” are the real Catholics and that those who follow the actual teachings of the Church are not.

Those that dissent from the Church’s teaching should admit that they are in dissent, but not pretend the Church teaches differently than it does. I have more respect for the open dissenters, and even those that leave, than those that argue that they understand and hold the “true” teachings of the Church, when what they are actually doing is picking and choosing among the teachings they like and dislike.

 

[c1949]

“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~

a) I’ve heard or read something like this. I don’t that was accomplished as most Protestants I know of object to the interpretation of the Eucharist. b) how would anybody even KNOW what EVERY protestant would object to and why does that matter, anyway? I didn’t know that Latin was a problem, going into the council, except that the bishops themselves supposedly were not conversant in Latin and needed a lot of help understanding what was going on. c) What happened, as time went on, is that the Mass wasn’t just translated in the vernacular but some of the parts of the Mass were made optional or just eliminated. The ‘sign of peace’ is optional and ridiculous and unsanitary but has gained that “set in stone” quality to it. d) I know that I was never asked my opinion about any of the optional parts of the Mass.I think this handshaking, hugging, kissing, etc. has “stuck” in the Mass because it gives the laity something to do besides stand there.

the last pastor used to have a ceremony where a couple would come up and “dress” the altar with linen before the Offertory, and then undress the altar after Communion – in the name of more participation of the laity.

 

[Windmill]

I have delved into this topic ad nauseam for 15 years. I was a very active OF parishioner in college, then went to an Anglican Use (within the Roman Rite) parish for 3 years, and then became very traddie for 20 years. I read everything from Davies, Lefebrve, Latin Mass magazine, Kwasniewski, etc… I started a men’s Schola 15 years ago (it’s still going strong), help setup a Latin Mass community and server corps, learned to MC the occasional High Mass, learned to pray the ‘62 Breviary and Monastic Diurnal, and carried around my Douay Rheims Bible in my briefcase…all the while attending an OF parish with my family.

I honestly think there are some Catholics who will have a better shot at Heaven attending the OF Mass…and there are others who would do better at the EF Mass. A lot of it has to do with individual temperament. What is good for some is toxic for others. I don’t begrudge anyone their Mass (or Divine Office) preferences anymore. I DO suggest they explore different forms, but I trust they will see what benefits them most. I do my part to help make both forms available and beautiful.

More important than Liturgy, in my opinion, is discipleship, evangelization, catechesis, and personal prayer. Very few pagans and heretics will come to the fullness of life in Christ if we spend inordinate time on Liturgy Wars. And very few of us will make it to Heaven if we neglect our own prayer lives in order to save the world from Bugnini.

 

[OraLabora]

For the umpteenth time, that quote was taken completely out of context. The context was an interview in the mid-60s in L’Ossevatore Romano, and related to removing language that was inflammatory and offensive to Protestants, from the 7th petition in the Good Friday liturgy. Nothing more, nothing less. It was most emphatically not about stripping all of the Liturgy of all that is Catholic in order to attract Protestants.

 

[OraLabora]

Very few pagans and heretics will come to the fullness of life in Christ if we spend inordinate time on Liturgy Wars. And very few of us will make it to Heaven if we neglect our own prayer lives in order to save the world from Bugnini.

I agree with this. In my own personal prayer life, I’ve been in a ying and yang struggle between using the Monastic Liturgy of the Hours as at the abbey I’m affiliated with, and the 4-week secular LOTH, for many years. Not so much a trad-vs-modern struggle though, as both are distinctly post-Conciliar breviaries! (In fact a strong argument can be made that the 4-week LOTH is actually more traditional than this modern Benedictine breviary, except for the number of psalms in a week). Still, it has been a distracting personal issue. But at least one monk was kind enough to say “but at least you’re praying!”.

It has however been distracting; I’m a bit OCD about the Divine Office and OCD is the devil’s tool.

 

[Peeps]

Yes, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, having been raised evangelical Protestant, the typical evangelical or Pentecostal service is not even remotely close to the OF . When I first started attending Mass as a teen convert to Catholicism, the OF, vernacular, chant free, incense free Mass in my small town parish struck me as a mystical, mysterious, out of this world sacrifice…

I was used to this format:
20-30 minutes of Praise & Worship style music - people may or may not wave their hands and/or sway
Free form opening prayer
45 minute sermon, with a few Bible verses peppered throughout
Free form closing prayer
Closing hymn or two

Even the basic structure of the OF Mass was completely foreign to me. Of course the services of liturgical Protestant churches, such as Lutherans and Anglicans, will be much closer to the OF…

This worship service format is exactly what I and my husband grew up with in the Evangelical churches, and currently what the majority of non-Catholics experience, IF they even go to church, in the U.S.A.

Polls show that Evangelical Protestantism is the largest church-going group in the U.S. It used to be Methodists, who used a liturgical worship service, but now they have lost so many members, and many of the Methodist churches have relaxed their liturgy to include a long Praise and Worship time, and other Evangelical activities.

Evangelical Protestantism, for the most part, has NOTHING in their worship experiences (many don’t even like to call them "worship services anymore) resembling the Catholic liturgy.

The Protestant denominations that did have a “Mass-like” worship service are pretty much decimated. Most of the large old (and new) Lutheran churches in our city have less than a hundred attendees, and some have much less than that. Same thing for Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ (not the Campbellites), etc.

Even the Evangelical Protestant denominational churches have lost a lot of their numbers.

The churches in our city that have a crowd on Sunday mornings are the CATHOLIC churches (OF of the Mass) and non-denoms.

Also, many Christians have given up on any formal “church” attendance or membership, and claim that they worship on their own or with a small group of friends or family.

My point in this post is to state that if ANY Christian, Catholic or Protestant, is still attending and is active in their ecclesial community/church–PRAISE GOD!

Yes , we want all Christians to be united in the true Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. But at this point in U.S. history, “church” is quickly going the way of the VCR and the land-line phone in many cities and towns. Although out in the rural areas, many Christians attend whatever churches have been in their little towns for many decades, many professing Christians have abandoned church attendance.

This rejection of a structured church is, IMO, a much more sobering issue than the questioning of the legitimacy of the OF of the Catholic Mass.

 

[Crusader13]

This rejection of a structured church is, IMO, a much more sobering issue than the questioning of the legitimacy of the OF of the Catholic Mass.

Fortunately, the topic at hand wasn’t about the legitimacy of the OF. The topic was about protestants who may have participated and offered their (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the development of the OF.

My experience is that most Catholics who prefer the EF over the OF, never question the legitimacy of the OF. The questions that surround the issue of why some Catholics prefer the EF over the OF are usually centered around reverence and the scriptural meaning behind the prayers and actions that the EF has in the liturgy and the disappointment by those who felt that such prayers and practices shouldn’t have been removed.

Unfortunately, the argument gets steered towards why EF supporters are questioning the legitimacy of the OF; when in reality that issue was never a point of contention.

 

[Crusader13]

removing language that was inflammatory and offensive to Protestants, from the 7th petition in the Good Friday liturgy

Your point doesn’t negate the fact that the apparent ideology behind Bugnini and others who may have shared similar views, was to shape the Mass in a way that made it more inviting to protestants. Obviously, at the time the changes were implemented, Protestant worship services were far more structured and liturgical than what many would see today in evangelical churches. The proposed changes to the Mass at the time of VII, never mentioned things such as celebrating Mass facing the people, Communion in the hand, the use of lay ministers, the removal of latin and Gregorian chant.

These changes were unfortunately made in the subsequent years after VII ended. Many of them without valid reason for doing so and the reasons for their implementation vary, but the most often cited authority for doing so, was VII.

 

[OraLabora]

Your point doesn’t negate the fact that the apparent ideology behind Bugnini and others who may have shared similar views, was to shape the Mass in a way that made it more inviting to protestants.

The quote was about a specific prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. Period. To infer anything else from it, or to suppose the deeper motives of a dead prelate, which are not in fact supported by any direct writings of his, or in official Church documents, is simply twisting truth to promote an agenda.

Sacrosanctum Concilium asked for a renewed liturgy of “noble simplicity” with greater participation of the faithful. Mgr. Bugnini was asked to deliver this, and this is exactly what he delivered, nothing more, nothing less. SC mentioned nothing about a more “protestant” Mass. Nor did Mgr Bugnini.

The proposed changes to the Mass at the time of VII, never mentioned things such as celebrating Mass facing the people, Communion in the hand, the use of lay ministers, the removal of latin and Gregorian chant.

None of which are related to the form of the Mass that Mgr Bugninin and his Concilium delivered. Gregorian chant is still licit in the OF in fact I was at an OF Mass just over a hour ago that used it, along with the pipe organ, as the only music in the Mass; Mass celebrating the people has always been licit if infrequent before the Council; and the Church has, in her wisdom, chosen to allow communion in the hand and the greater use of lay ministers. That for me, settles that issue.

In any event, none of these disciplinary matters have anything to do whatsoever with the Mass that Mgr. Bugnini delivered, and that a saint signed off on, and which in every way met Sacrosanctum Concilium -and the bishops’- prescription for a reformed Mass of noble simplicity.

It’s up to detractors to prove that Mgr. Bugnini desired a more “protestant” Mass, not infer motives on dead clergy whose minds they cannot read. My guess is that they can’t from any published sources, so they resort to techniques like taking that famous quote completely out of context to infer nefarious motives from dead man.

 

[twf]

I imagine if more parishes offered an OF Mass with the traditional “bells and whistles” (Chant, incense, a bit of Latin), we would see fewer OF detractors. Of course, some still would not be happy.

 

[Crusader13]

The quote was about a specific prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. Period. To infer anything else from it, or to suppose the deeper motives of a dead prelate, which are not in fact supported by any direct writings of his, or in official Church documents, is simply twisting truth to promote an agenda.

I respectively disagree with you on this. You can choose to compartmentalize this issue and keep separate the comments and actions by this individual, but the accounts, comments, interviews, documents and a host of other research, at least gives rise to the possibility that much of what took place was driven by an ideology/agenda/motive, or whatever term you wish to use. What that motive was, is open to debate, what exactly is Noble Simplicity is open to debate, what is allowed vs what is more efficacious for the benefit of the laity, is open to debate.

If you wish to shelter every change in the liturgy under the umbrella of “the church in her wisdom” as a means of quelling any criticism towards the new changes, that is your choice.

In the end, all I can say is that there were men, within the Church, who shared a common vision and/or goal for what the new Mass should be and represent. The changes made reflected the thinking of these individuals and the prevailing mindset of the times. I never once offered up the idea that Bugnini, alone, was the one solely responsible for the new Mass and every change that followed after VII.

 

[Peeps]

Fortunately, the topic at hand wasn’t about the legitimacy of the OF.

I have the strong impression from various posters on CAF that their perceived “inadequacy” of the OF Mass brings into question its “legitimacy.”

And to be honest and possibly offensive to you–as a former Protestant, I am very, very, VERY grateful that there are some leaders in the Catholic Church who place(d) a strong priority on reaching out to Protestants and attempting to “woo” them back into the True Church of Jesus Christ. St. Paul said that he would be all things to all people in his efforts to win them to Jesus Christ.

I can testify that my husband and I attended one Latin Mass when we were younger (a friend was married in our local Latin Mass parish), and we were appalled at what we saw as non-Christian and idolatrous. We were and still are intelligent people, but we couldn’t follow the Missal in the pews (it was probably a liturgy specifically for weddings, so perhaps it wasn’t in the missal anyway). We had no clue about anything that was going on (other than that our friends were getting married), and we did not feel any inclination to ever return to a Catholic Church again.

I’ll admit that after we had our babies, and our parents-in-law traveled cross country to see us at Christmas time, I headed up to the midnight Mass at the local Catholic parish nearest us, mainly to have some time away from the babies and free babysitting! I was pleasantly surprised to hear English, not Latin, and to sing Christmas carols instead of listening to Latin chant, and after all these years, I still remember the elderly priest’s short but pithy and warm-hearted homily.

I think that this experience of the “modern” Mass helped me to be more open to the truth of Catholicism, and when it became clear that the pro-life movement was being driven primarily by Catholic Christians, and Evangelical Protestant Christians started working alongside them, that’s what convinced me that yes, Catholics really were Christians.

So IMO, and no apologies–I’m very grateful for the changes that made the Mass and the Catholic Church more appealing to us Protestants. I think that if Catholics were convinced that many Protestants are living a half-life in the Lord, and lacking the Eucharist and unaware of all the other blessings available to them from Holy Mother Church–they would cheer for vernacular Mass done with a priest facing the people, hymns instead of chant, and gasp…a piano or guitars in addition to the organ.

Missionaries to far-away lands often work hard to make changes in their “European/American” lifestyle so that they will fit in better with prevailing culture, and this strategy is usually very effective in attracting the locals and gaining their trust. This, IMO, is what the Catholic has done and is doing, and I love it. It helped to bring me and my husband home.