From the SSPX Website

[stmaria]

=Sure;3319423]Wait! They had Communion! Well, that must mean that the TLM is protestant because they have Communion also!

No…The TLM has the actual Body and Blood of Christ. They have mere bread and wine.

The reason there are similarities between both forms of the roman rite and the protestant services is because they are both derived from Catholicism
This should really be no surprise. The protestants did not invent Communion in the hand or freestanding altars or the priest facing the people or Mass in the vernacular…all of these things were done by Catholics before the reformation.

When? In the first century when the liturgy was being developed? Pope Gregory in the seventh century did not face the people or say Mass in the vernacular.

The “communion” service you describe is not any more similar to the ordinary form than the extraordinary form. Let’s look at it:

1. Extraordinary Form
Priest or deacon
Communion on Tongue
Kneeling
Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice

2. Ordinary Form
Priest, Deacon, or layperson
Communion on Tongue or in hand
Standing after sign of reverence or Kneeling
Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice

3. Protestant (as you described)
Deacon or layperson
Self-communicate in the hand
Sitting
Mass is not a Sacrifice, only a memorial

Where is the overwhelming evidence that 2 and 3 are so much more similar? They seem pretty different to me.

Two and three are the same. All vernacular, facing the people, the words of consecration almost identical, pop music, communion in the hand, received standing
I have a 1978 revised copy of the Book of Common Prayer used in the Episocpal Mass. Very, very similar to the Novus Ordo. Here are their words of Consecration.
“On the night he was handed over to suffering and death, our Lord Jesus Christ took bread; and when he had given thanks to you, he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take eat: This is my Body, which is given up for you. Do this for the rememberance of me.”
“After supper he took the cup of wine; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and said, “Drink this, all of you: This is my Blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it, do this for the rememberance of me”
Therefrore we proclaim the mystery of faith:
Christ has died . Christ is risen. Christ will come again."

They believe that the mystery of faith is that Christ has died etc. I bet Catholics also believe that. But this is wrong.

They also have optional Eucharistic Prayers and have “For thine is the kingdom…”

There are no similarities to the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Sure]

I have a 1978 revised copy of the Book of Common Prayer used in the Episocpal Mass. Very, very similar to the Novus Ordo. Here are their words of Consecration.
“On the night he was handed over to suffering and death, our Lord Jesus Christ took bread; and when he had given thanks to you, he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take eat: This is my Body, which is given up for you. Do this for the rememberance of me.”
“After supper he took the cup of wine; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and said, “Drink this, all of you: This is my Blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink it, do this for the rememberance of me”
Therefrore we proclaim the mystery of faith:
Christ has died . Christ is risen. Christ will come again."

They believe that the mystery of faith is that Christ has died etc. I bet Catholics also believe that. But this is wrong.

They also have optional Eucharistic Prayers and have “For thine is the kingdom…”

There are no similarities to the Extraordinary Form.

You’re joking right?

You are surprised that the Protestants stole the words of consecration from the Catholic Mass?

The same words that you are shocked at seeing in the ordinary form are also there in the extraordinary form in Latin which at the time it was instituted was the vernacular. So, no similarities…Ha Ha Ha. That’s just silly.

You can try all you want to say that the ordinary form is protestant. It isn’t. It’s a validly promulgated roman rite liturgy and as a valid discipline cannot cause impiety. Period.

And Pope Gregory would have offered Mass in St. Peters facing the people (also east).

 

[Margarite]

I must ask you SSPX people, what is soooooooo different between the TLM and NO consecration? If it is just the difference between “many” and “all” then you guys are ridiculous. Translation is so tricky, it could be any number of similar words. Besides, is not the Catholic Church for all and thus is not Holy Communion for all? It is only those who reject Our Lord, who cannot receive Holy Communion, but there are baptized, communicated Catholics who are unworthy to receive Holy Communion.

It is a silly argument.
I know there are many abuses in the Church, but just think how much stronger the Church would be if all these SSPX people would come back and fight for what is good and beautiful.
Now you must realize, that there are really wonderful people, and priests in the NO. There are priests that I have met who I am sure will someday be saints. They love God with all their heart and soul and are struggling to do God’s will. They have a very hard time, because now whenever people look at a priest, they think of the scandals. Because of the evil of a few, all priests have been branded and now the life of a good priest is so much the harder. Not only that, but there are liberal women who “help” the priest around the church. They do the cleaning, and the organizing and everything else. They choose the music, and train the altar servers. So the priest relies on them. The priest must rely upon these people because of the lack of vocations, there is a huge shortage. At my parish, there are 10,000 families and only two full time priests, and one of the priests is the vicar general, so he is gone much of the time attending to those duties. So really, we only have one full time priest. That is horrible. The conservative people have more kids (there are 6 in my family) so they have less time to volunteer and so the liberals have taken over.

If you look at the mass on EWTN, you can see how beautiful the NO can be if the trads will only get involved, if the SSPX people will stop running away and instead turn and fight the good fight. Is the Church that Christ started not worth fighting for?

Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

PS: forgive my spelling.

 

[stmaria]

=Sure;3320189]You’re joking right?

You are surprised that the Protestants stole the words of consecration from the Catholic Mass?

The same words that you are shocked at seeing in the ordinary form are also there in the extraordinary form in Latin which at the time it was instituted was the vernacular. So, no similarities…Ha Ha Ha. That’s just silly

The form of the words of consecration used in the EF and the OF are not the same.
Luther removed “Mystery of Faith” as did those that wrote the New Mass. Luther added “which is given up for you” which was added by those that wrote the New Mass. Luther removed " for many" as did those who wrote the New Mass when they accepted the faulty translation of “pro multis”

You can try all you want to say that the ordinary form is protestant. It isn’t. It’s a validly promulgated roman rite liturgy and as a valid discipline cannot cause impiety. Period

.

I am saying that the Mass was changed so that it would not be offensive to Protestants. The TLM was offensive to Luther and Cramner.

And Pope Gregory would have offered Mass in St. Peters facing the people (also east).

No, not facing the people intentionly but facing east.

 

[Sure]

The form of the words of consecration used in the EF and the OF are not the same.
Luther removed “Mystery of Faith” as did those that wrote the New Mass. Luther added “which is given up for you” which was added by those that wrote the New Mass. Luther removed " for many" as did those who wrote the New Mass when they accepted the faulty translation of “pro multis”

Still overwhelmingly the same.

I am saying that the Mass was changed so that it would not be offensive to Protestants. The TLM was offensive to Luther and Cramner.

Or maybe not. There is no realy proof to this only your own speculation as to why changes were made.

No, not facing the people intentionly but facing east.

And yet, still facing the people and at a “table” altar no less!

The point is that “table” altars, facing the people and using the vernacular were not unheard of in the roman tradition. So to say that they are protestant inventions is incorrect.

 

[stmaria]

=Sure;3320361]Still overwhelmingly the same

.
But not the same.

.

There is no realy proof to this only your own speculation as to why changes were made.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Mass was changed for ecumenism. Three weeks after the Vatican II Council began and more than a year before the* Constitution on the Liturgy *was voted on, Bishop William Dushak gave an interview to Father Ralph Wiltgen. It is very revealing. He included the interview in his book *The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.*Pg 37-38 :

“ “My idea is to introduce an** ecumenical Mass**, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable…It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people**….this ecumenical Mass**… **is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths **in order to provide a **basis of common worship **by all Christians” When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it” Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on November 6 1962 ** five years before the Novus Ordo **was shown to the Synod of Bishops for the first time."

This non-offensive ecumenicial Mass was in the planning stages for a long time.

 

[Cristiano]

The form of the words of consecration used in the EF and the OF are not the same.
Luther removed “Mystery of Faith” as did those that wrote the New Mass. Luther added “which is given up for you” which was added by those that wrote the New Mass. Luther removed " for many" as did those who wrote the New Mass when they accepted the faulty translation of “pro multis”

The faulty translation as nothing to do with the OF vs. EF. The OF uses “pro multis” so this is a non issue when you look for an association with protestantism. The approach that you are using looks to me like it is intentionally misleading.

 

[Sure]

.
But not the same.

.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Mass was changed for ecumenism. Three weeks after the Vatican II Council began and more than a year before the* Constitution on the Liturgy *was voted on, Bishop William Dushak gave an interview to Father Ralph Wiltgen. It is very revealing. He included the interview in his book *The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.*Pg 37-38 :

“ “My idea is to introduce an** ecumenical Mass**, stripped wherever possible of historical accretions, one that is based on the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, one that is deeply rooted in Holy Scripture. By this I mean that it should contain all the essential elements of the Last Supper, using language and gestures that are understandable…It would be a kind of celebration of the Mass which all members of a community…can readily understand without involved explanations…the entire Mass, including the Canon, should be said aloud in the vernacular and facing the people**….this ecumenical Mass**… **is to be written by liturgical scholars of all faiths **in order to provide a **basis of common worship **by all Christians” When asked if his proposal originated with the people whom he served he stated, “ No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it” Dushaks remarks were carried on page one of the New York Times on November 6 1962 ** five years before the Novus Ordo **was shown to the Synod of Bishops for the first time."

This non-offensive ecumenicial Mass was in the planning stages for a long time.

Was Bishop Wilhelm Duschak one of the bishops who developed the new liturgy? If not, then his quotation as a prediction is meaningless. If he wasn’t involved then there can be no causation between his quotation and the eventual new Missal.

 

[jj2011]

There’s nothing inherently Protestant about communion under both kinds; otherwise the latin Church was “Protestant” for hundreds of years.

I have frequently defended SSPX, and it is not wrong to suggest that the reforms have gone in a Protestantizing direction or worse, but SSPX doesn’t help itself by putting out false statements like the one just cited.

 

[stmaria]

The faulty translation as nothing to do with the OF vs. EF. The OF uses “pro multis” so this is a non issue when you look for an association with protestantism. The approach that you are using looks to me like it is intentionally misleading.

How am I misleading? The OF uses " pro multis" only in a Latin Novus Ordo. In vernaculars throughout the world, except for two, "pro multis’ is translated “for all”

Is it true or not? Luther removed 'Mystery of Faith" from the words of consecration. Yes or no? And so did the Conslilium. Yes or no?

Luther added “which is given for you” and so did the Consilium. Yes or no?
Luther removed “for many” and the Consilium also removed “for many” Yes or no?

Luther Catechism
The Large Catechism_ by Dr. Martin Luther OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

     ….And all these are established by the words by
    which Christ has instituted it, and which every one who
    desires to be a Christian and go to the Sacrament should know.
    For it is not our intention to admit to it and to administer
    it to those who know not what they seek, or why they come. The
    words, however, are these:
    
    Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was
    betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake
    it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is
    My body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.
    
    After the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped,
    gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
    this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for
    you for the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink
    it, in remembrance of Me.

The form used in the OF and the EF are different.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
ISSUED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
MISSALE ROMANUM
ON NEW ROMAN MISSAL
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

“…Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM. The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful…”

Translation
Take this, all of you and eat it: This is my body which will be given up for you
Take this all of you, and drink from it: This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

In the EF
De Defectibus Papal Bull of Pope St. Pius V.
"Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM "

For this is My Body
For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal Testament: the Mystery of Faith; which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins

 

[Sure]

Is it true or not? Luther removed 'Mystery of Faith" from the words of consecration. Yes or no? And so did the Conslilium. Yes or no?

Luther added “which is given for you” and so did the Consilium. Yes or no?
Luther removed “for many” and the Consilium also removed “for many” Yes or no?

This does not prove causality. Particularly considering that the changes occured 400 years apart, proving that Luther caused the changes is pretty far-fetched.

 

[stmaria]

Was Bishop Wilhelm Duschak one of the bishops who developed the new liturgy? If not, then his quotation as a prediction is meaningless. If he wasn’t involved then there can be no causation between his quotation and the eventual new Missal.

Bishop Duschak was not a member of the Consilium. His “prediction” was not meaningless. For him to describe the Novus Ordo **seven years before **the Novus Ordo was promulgated shows that these refroms had been discussed within the circle of reformers. The groundwork for the New Mass had begun before the Council had even begun…
Bugnini sites this fact in his book, "Pg 338. “ The first meeting [of the Concilium] was held at Rome in April 1964. “As part of the work done by the Preparatory Commission, the scholars in charge of this area had produced complete plans for simplification and renewal. “

The Preparatory Commision, while writing the* Constitution on the Liturgy*, had already begun writing the New Mass.
Bugnini was in fact removed from the Preparatory Commission and banned from Vatican II by Pope John because when Cardinal Ottavani, " discovered how much progress was evident in the Liturgical Commission’s finished schema, they removed the secretary of the commission, Annibale Bugnini." [Time Magazine Robert Kaiser 1963* Pope Council and World ]

 

[stmaria]

This does not prove causality. Particularly considering that the changes occured 400 years apart, proving that Luther caused the changes is pretty far-fetched.

According to Annibale’s Bugnini’s the Protestants that attended the meetings of the Consilium that wrote the Liturgy were “Anglican Canon Jasper, Reverend Massey Shepherd professor at the Church divinity School of the Pacific, Methodist Professor Raymond George, Lutheran Pastor Friedrich Kunneth, Lutheran Reverend Eugene Brand and Calvinist Frere Max Thurian of the Taize community.”

Do you honestly believe that they sat there day after day and said nothing? Contributed nothing?

“They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972

“It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics.”
– Calvinist Max Thurian, Taize community member of the Concilium as a Protestant Observor

 

[Sure]

Bishop Duschak was not a member of the Consilium. His “prediction” was not meaningless. For him to describe the Novus Ordo **seven years before **the Novus Ordo was promulgated shows that these refroms had been discussed within the circle of reformers.

But he didn’t describe the new Mass. He described what you and some other traditionalists “think” the new Mass is.

 

[antgaria]

Peace,

I was sufficiently curious enough regarding the changes in the NO to get a book by Cipriano Vagaggini, a monk, not sure if he was a priest or if he was a lay monk. In the book, he makes a very nice comparison of the Roman Canon with many other ancient anaphoras. I think many things that are brought up against the NO are explained in there.

Vagaggini was careful to analyze and compare and contrast the structure and form of the Canon with the other ones. I think one must really investigate some of these things to get a sense of what was happening, especially in regards to the Institution Narrative. Mysterium Fidei, for example, is not present in any of the IN’s in the other anaphoras.

Some of the other things mentioned, have been in use in the East and are still very much in use: eg. the giving of both bread and wine species as the body and blood, the Our Father prayer having “For thine.”

Even with ecumenical concerns that might have played a role in the NO, I would say that it was also to address certain abuses in belief that were popping up, as well as to make the mass more approachable to the common faithful. I’ll take heat with that statement I’m sure, but I mean let’s be truthful here, what does “Vulgate” derive from?

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[ac_claire]

But he didn’t describe the new Mass. He described what you and some other traditionalists “think” the new Mass is.

Well said.
So far I see it’s pure conjecture that the Holy Mass was altered so it wouldn’t offend protestants. Show me proof and I’ll accept that. As far as dueling sources, I have a biography of Fulton Sheen that describes the Protestants at the VII Council as witnesses/observers. That was their purpose, according to this source. For whatever that’s worth.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

The NO has adopted the Protestant version of the Our Father, with the “For Thine is the Kingdom…” bit at the end. It’s not rejecting somthing just because the Protestants do it, it’s rejecting adopting practices which bring the Catholic Mass more into line with Protestant services. It is naive to think that many of these changes in the NOM were not done for that express purpose.

Sorry, once again, this is also found in the various other rites that have existed side by side with the Roman Rite over the last 2000 years.