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.
C

c1949

Guest
Does anybody have a reference to anything that describes who participated in the development of the modern (current) form of the Mass? I’m trying to track down a rumor that Lutherans were part of the group that advised on the changes in the Mass.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t read it, but it has been recommended to me about this topic; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.
 
The reforms were ordered by an Ecumenical Council and carried out under a (now) sainted Pope. That’s enough for me, even if Lutherans were consulted.
 
Last edited:
Why shun away from learning how something developed? Furthermore, just because a Pope was declared a Saint (which I am by no means denying, Paul VI had some great contributions to the Church) doesn’t mean every choice he made was a prudent one. We are allowed to ask questions of the hierarchy and research how things developed.
 
They were only observers from what I understand. There were two Lutherans, one Anglican, one Episcopalian, one Methodist, and one Taize guy of Calvinist persuasion.

The Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed that to be the case, stating in response to rumors to the contrary: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” (La Documentation Catholique vol. 58 page 649).
 
Last edited:
The New Order of the Mass could have been approached a lot differently, but I won’t question the Pope’s judgement on the changes that were made. If you ask me, the German bishops were a bit too hasty in their reforms.
 
Joachim Jeremias’ books were widely read at the time, in particular The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 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.

Jeremias had an exceptionally thorough knowledge of Biblical languages. He grew up in Jerusalem where his father was the Lutheran chaplain to the local German community.
https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-...,p_28:eucharistic&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1
 
Last edited:
angel12 said:
Participating in discussions doesn’t mean anything at all. Show me they directed the development.
Click to expand...
He also provides two quotes from two protestant observers.
Archdeacon Pawley, an Anglican Observer, reveals that “In the course of the Council itself the fullest courtesies and opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to the Observers at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognized in the documents themselves.” - B. Pawley, Rome and Canterbury through Four Centuries (London: Mowbray, 1974). p. 343.

Robert McAfee Brown, a Presbyterian Observer, remarks:
Particularly, during the discussion on ecumenism, it was apparent that many bishops wanted to know what Protestant reactions were to the statements in the schema about Protestantism, and wanted to elicit Protestant opinions on how the schema could improved. 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. - R. McAfee Brown, Observer in Rome (London: Methuen, 1964), pp. 227-228.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
angel12 said:
40.png
Crusader13:
although we had no direct “voice” on the Council floor,
Click to expand...
thank you.
Click to expand...
Just because they were not allowed to voice their own views and opinions directly on the floor, doesn’t mean they weren’t heard. They used indirect methods of contact and by giving their suggestions directly to the periti themselves during informal meetings. Their suggestions were then carried to the floor by the periti themselves.

So you’re conclusion that they had no effect on the new rites whatsoever is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
There probably were Lutherans in attendance. AFAIK, leaders from a wide variety of faiths are invited to attend the various councils.

Now, “proof” of (name removed by moderator)ut or other participation seems lacking, but the usual suspects (paranoiacs?) seem all too often to twist mere attendance into rants about the faith being diluted or abandoned.
 
It is not lacking, simply ignored.

It seems to me that most people flat out deny that there was any protestant influence to the new rites whatsoever. The reasons seem to vary, but from what I can tell, to acknowledge protestant influence would be to admit that the new form was stripped of its Catholicity and therefore that would be at least, “questionable.”

Others, who do acknowledge that there was protestant influence, merely find the good in the ecumenical influence and chose to accept it without any bias or concern.

I’m not advocating the OF isn’t valid. I’m simply stating that the proof is there for those who chose to see it, that there was protestant influence, either directly or indirectly. The motives behind those who allowed such, may be open to debate, but we can no longer flat out deny that protestant influence wasn’t a factor.
 
That’s fair. My concern is that many accounts of “Protestant influence” come from those with a very slanted, anti-VII agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top