that is one of the arguments of the sedevacantists in their objection to novus ordo that the protestants and a rabbi had their hands in the creation of the N.O. ** The sedevacantists would not accept that those people were just observers**. They could not believe that N.O. can and must be celebrated with the same reverence as the TLM. They misinterpret the abuses in the celebration of N.O Mass as if those abuses/aberrations are approved by the Holy See.
I am not a sedevacantist yet I absolutely believe that the Protestant observers had an (name removed by moderator)ut into the reform of the Mass.
Please consider that the observers represented the liturgical views of Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism
It is not an accident that the changes to the Mass are the same changes that the Protestant Reformers made to their Mass.
The Mass was changed for the purpose of ecumenism. But in doing so, in my opinion, the Catholic reformers did the very thing that Dom Prosper Gueranger, founder of the Benedictine Congregation of France wrote about in the year 1840.
Dom Prosper Gueranger
Liturgical Institutions
The first characteristic of the anti-liturgical heresy is hatred of Tradition as found in the formulas used in divine worship. One cannot fail to note this special characteristic in all heretics, from Vigilantus to Calvin, and the reason for it is easy to explain.
Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.
As a matter of fact, how could Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism establish themselves and maintain their influence over the masses? All they had to do was substitute new books and new formulas in place of the ancient books and formulas, and their work was done. There was nothing that still bothered the new teachers; they could just go on preaching as they wished: the faith of the people was henceforth without defense.
Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship. This is in the eyes of sectarians a most important item. Cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing.
Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit… We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language.
If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace.”
In my opinion the Mass has lost much of its sacred character. Tradition is being destroyed. The bond between Catholics, one common language of the liturgy, has been taken.The mystery of the Mass has been weakened by the stripping of the sanctuary, communion in the hand, lay Eucharistic ministers, pop music, all vernacular liturgy etc. and the banal architecture of the modern Church.
