Did Pius XII and John XXIII help make the NO?

[Pope_Noah_I]

Like, they didn’t propogate it, but they had a hand in it’s development?

 

[stmaria]

Like, they didn’t propogate it, but they had a hand in it’s development?

Pius XII had nothing to do with the Novus Ordo. He allowed a few changes to the Traditional Mass that could be used during Holy week.
Pope John authorized the pre-councilar commission that wrote the Constitution on the Liturgy, and other drafts on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism.

 

[kleary]

Absolutely not. Remember, John XXIII issued a new missal- a Tridentine Missal at that.

Also, a Consillium of “experts” after “Vatican II” did the creation, not the previous popes.

Ken

 

[bpbasilphx]

I suppose, if you really wanted to, you could say that reform of the liturgy started with Pius XII. Some of the more disgruntled trads have done that.

Of course, if you really wanted to, you could say anything, regardless of the accuracy.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Like, they didn’t propogate it, but they had a hand in it’s development?

I don’t think this is correct. The reforms of Pius XII and Bl. John XXIII had to do with simplifying the rubrics of the Roman Missal and Breviary. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, had to do with introducing reforms that changed the nature of the traditional Roman Liturgy to the extent that one cannot see the organic development that once characterized the Latin Liturgy. Organic development in the form of choice simplifications and new additions that respect what currently exists has always characterized the Sacred Liturgy. Massive simplifications (almost always denoted by general change and not individually specified reform) and new additions that replace what currently exists are novelties and cannot be substantiated in the history of approved liturgical rites.

God bless,

Adam

 

[jj2011]

Like, they didn’t propogate it, but they had a hand in it’s development?

Pius XII made Bugnini secretary of the liturgical commission in 1948; John XXIII actually removed Bugnini in 1963.

I don’t think Pius XII had any hand in creating the Novus Ordo, other than naming Bugnini to the commission-- and the latter didn’t even become an alleged Freemason until 1963!

John XXIII was dead long before the Consilium that did create the NO was even established.

I see no substance in the notion that either pope created the NO. Extreme traditionalists sometimes make every pre-Vatican II rubrical change a preview of the Novus Ordo in order to support such a charge. In reality both St. Pius X and Pius XII were seriously considering rubrical and liturgical reforms long before anybody heard of Bugnini or the Novus Ordo.

 

[kleary]

It should be very easy to see.

The ones responsible for the Novus Ordo were former Catholics later declared heretics.

That’s where the roots of it all are. The Protestant heretical Revolt of the 16’th century.

Ken

 

[AJV]

Like, they didn’t propogate it, but they had a hand in it’s development?

In a way…though I doubt that they would have gone to the extent that they did. Pius XII was the one who appointed Bugnini to the first Commission that drafted the revised Holy Week. And even though it is not the NO, one must admit to seeing certain features that would characterize the NO. It is really a mixed bag.

Take Pius XII: one one hand, he certainly foresaw some changes to the TLM - concelebration (see the Assisi allocution), a simplified order of the Mass- not the NO, but he was willing to accede to changes. He did not halt nor condemn (in fact, he supported quite frequently) the work and proposals of the Congresses - reduction/elimination of the recitation of the Iudica Me and Last Gospel, Secret aloud, possible reworking of the lectionery and aloowance for the Mass of teh Catechumens to be carried out in choro. In short, a lot of the ideas of 1965 he definitely foresaw and even some of 1967. Even ad populum he did not object to. It was the Vatican that intervened for example, when some of the German bishops, especially +Grober of Frieburg objected to the vernacular and the German version of a sung Mass. Even the great encyclical Mediator Dei, while on one hand condemning certain features, reserves ultramontanely changes to the Papacy (from where changes ultimately did come) and subjects the liturgy to the Pope. Not to mention the reworking of the lex orendi, lex credendi. The initial proposals for reform were also solicited from some known for their criticism of what they termed “accretions”. I was able to look at some scans of the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica through the kindness of a friend, and some of the proposals advanced in 1948-1951 and 1956-1957 are quite radical. It is not the NO, but neither it is simply TLM simplified. In fact, in certain liturgical areas like the breviary it is waaay beyond mere simplification.

OTOH he certainly would have disapproved of the positioning of the tabernacle, vestments, and reworking of certain features of the liturgy like the Words of Consecration. Likewise would John XXIII disapproved of the wholesale discarding of Latin.

 

[ForeverAdam]

In short, a lot of the ideas of 1965 he definitely foresaw and even some of 1967.

You seem knowledgeable about how the liturgical reform progressed in the Roman Catholic Church. I have a question concerning the 1967 instruction Tres Abhinc Annos. In section 11, this document states:

***In the Canon, the celebrant:

a. begins the Te igitur standing erect and with hands outstretched;

b. makes one sign of the cross over the offerings at the words benedicas + haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in the prayer Te igitur. He makes no other sign of the cross over the offerings.***

Should this be interpreted as stating that the priest is only to make one sign of the Cross in the prayer Te igitur, one sign of the Cross in the Canon or would this both remove the signs of the Cross in the Canon **and **the ceremony with the particle of the Host at the Pax Domini?

Even the great encyclical Mediator Dei, while on one hand condemning certain features, reserves ultramontanely changes to the Papacy (from where changes ultimately did come) and subjects the liturgy to the Pope.

I’m not sure that this is an example of ultramontanism. The Patriarchs of the great patriarchal sees have always reserved to themselves the right to supervise the development of the patriarchal liturgical rite. However, until Paul VI it was assumed that organic development and a strong adherence to Holy Tradition would dictate how the Patriarchs acted toward the Liturgy. In fact, in other Catholic Rites this principle still holds true and presently Pope Benedict is attempting to restore it in the Latin Rite.

I was able to look at some scans of the Memoria sulla riforma liturgica through the kindness of a friend, and some of the proposals advanced in 1948-1951 and 1956-1957 are quite radical. It is not the NO, but neither it is simply TLM simplified. In fact, in certain liturgical areas like the breviary it is waaay beyond mere simplification.

What were some of the changes suggested for the Roman Breviary? Thanks.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Is there any proof that Bugnini was a Freemason? If there isn’t, that’s a pretty serious slander.

Also, to deny the validity and legitimacy of a rite promulgated by the Roman Pontiff is heresy. Why? The Mass is a matter of faith and morals - we have FAITH that we are worshipping not bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ - and is as such covered by papal infallibility. This doesn’t mean that Popes can’t change the rites (for some have argued that St Pius V’s Quo Primum was infallible); it does mean that one absolutely cannot denigrate the substantial legitimacy of the rite (though one can certainly acknowledge that one rite is aesthetically better than another).

“Pray for the canonization of Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul I”

 

[jj2011]

Is there any proof that Bugnini was a Freemason? If there isn’t, that’s a pretty serious slander.

Bugnini was said to have lost a briefcase with documents disclosing his Masonic connection. His name also appeared on a register
of Masonic members published in the seventies in the Italian press.

Fr Brian Harrison discusses the briefcase thing here:

ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/aug1989p18_635.html

I’ll stand corrected if need be, but in his memoirs Bugnini admits, not that he was a Mason, but that Paul VI suspected he was one, hence the sudden exile to Iran.

 

[Arnobius]

Bugnini was said to have lost a briefcase with documents disclosing his Masonic connection. His name also appeared on a register
of Masonic members published in the seventies in the Italian press.

Fr Brian Harrison discusses the briefcase thing here:

ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/aug1989p18_635.html

I’ll stand corrected if need be, but in his memoirs Bugnini admits, not that he was a Mason, but that Paul VI suspected he was one, hence the sudden exile to Iran.

According to the link, this claim was published in unspecified undated (Late November 1975) “Italian Press”

What Press? What Date?

That is about as credible as “A friend of a friend of a friend told me”

We ought to remember that the Church condemns calumny and detraction

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. (CCC)

 

[jj2011]

According to the link, this claim was published in unspecified undated (Late November 1975) “Italian Press”

What Press? What Date?

That is about as credible as “A friend of a friend of a friend told me”

We ought to remember that the Church condemns calumny and detraction

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. (CCC)

Well, I’m afraid that the “calumny and detraction” were spread by Bugnini himself.
Toward the end of the summer [of 1975] a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a “dossier” which he had seen (or brought to?) the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason*…

Bugnini, Annibale. The Reform of the Liturgy : 1948-1975, The Liturgical Press, 1990, p. 91.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If you wanted to, you could say that Pius X helped make the Novus Ordo with his reform of the Breviary that included a RADICAL redistribution of the Psalter and other restructurings.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Bugnini was said to have lost a briefcase with documents disclosing his Masonic connection. His name also appeared on a register
of Masonic members published in the seventies in the Italian press.

Fr Brian Harrison discusses the briefcase thing here:

ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/aug1989p18_635.html

I’ll stand corrected if need be, but in his memoirs Bugnini admits, not that he was a Mason, but that Paul VI suspected he was one, hence the sudden exile to Iran.

The Holy See categorically denied that the Archbishop was a Mason.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, I’m afraid that the “calumny and detraction” were spread by Bugnini himself.

Toward the end of the summer [of 1975] a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a “dossier” which he had seen (or brought to?) the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason…

Bugnini, Annibale. The Reform of the Liturgy : 1948-1975, The Liturgical Press, 1990, p. 91.

The Archbishop was simply addressing the issue. There is no proof and the Holy See itself categorically denied that Bugnini was a Mason, in the early 70’s.

 

[Arnobius]

Well, I’m afraid that the “calumny and detraction” were spread by Bugnini himself.
Toward the end of the summer [of 1975] a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a “dossier” which he had seen (or brought to?) the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason*…

Bugnini, Annibale. The Reform of the Liturgy : 1948-1975, The Liturgical Press, 1990, p. 91.

The quote certainly does not sound like it came from Bugnini. Are you sure you have the right context and have not merely quote mined from a SSPX site? As I recall Bugnini cited the L’Osservatore Romano as a proof of his being cleared of these charges. if this was from a book written by Bugnini, I suspect he is relaying a charge made against him.

Still not proof here. Show us something verifiable in the context we can evaluate.

 

[georgewithfaith]

The responsibility and authority for approving the current form of Mass came from Pope Paul VI. No one seems to take him to task for anything. I don’t know much about him except for the changes he made. Why did he approve such radical change so quickly? Where does he stand with theologians and scholars?

 

[AJV]

***In the Canon, the celebrant:

a. begins the Te igitur standing erect and with hands outstretched;

b. makes one sign of the cross over the offerings at the words benedicas + haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, in the prayer Te igitur. He makes no other sign of the cross over the offerings.***

Should this be interpreted as stating that the priest is only to make one sign of the Cross in the prayer Te igitur, one sign of the Cross in the Canon or would this both remove the signs of the Cross in the Canon **and **the ceremony with the particle of the Host at the Pax Domini?

The second.

What were some of the changes suggested for the Roman Breviary? Thanks.

If you’ll give me a couple a days, I’ll go through the files and see what I can send your way.

 

[AJV]

The responsibility and authority for approving the current form of Mass came from Pope Paul VI. No one seems to take him to task for anything.

If you look at the past threads I think you’ll find plenty of taking to task.