H
HenryV
Guest
What about the Protestants advisors who helped Bugnini et altri to create the NOM? Is it a traditionalist myth or is it the truth?
Yes. This is one of the saddest facts of VII. A fact of history that no neo-conservative apologist can refute. They were not only there at the meeting, they were listened to and, indeed, contributed to creation of the N.O.What about the Protestants advisors who helped Bugnini et altri to create the NOM? Is it a traditionalist myth or is it the truth?
If possible, read this book, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber”. It has an imprimatur and nihil obstat. It will help you to understand how the council reforms made way for the reform of the Latin Rite mass…What about the Protestants advisors who helped Bugnini et altri to create the NOM? Is it a traditionalist myth or is it the truth?
According to Annibale’s Bugnini’s book *Reform of the Liturgy *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.What about the Protestants advisors who helped Bugnini et altri to create the NOM? Is it a traditionalist myth or is it the truth?
Could you then please tell us what exactly they did? What prayers did the contribute to, or not, etc.? A fact of history that I’ve seen no proponent address. Nor has it it been done so on this thread.Yes. This is one of the saddest facts of VII. A fact of history that no neo-conservative apologist can refute. They were not only there at the meeting, they were listened to and, indeed, contributed to creation of the N.O.
Sorry, as I said in a thread recently, this quote is highly inaccurate bordering on false."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.”
(Archbishop Bugnini before the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Osservatore Romano”, March 19, 1965)
Yes. Very little. One just happens to pray “we bring before you this bread and this cup and we pray you to accept this our duty and service a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” “Send the Holy Spirit on your people …all who share in this one bread and one cup”. The other happens to actually offer the “Bread of Life” and “Cup of salvation” (Eucharistic terms from the roman Canon) and pray that unity may be achieved in achieved by all “who share in the body and Blood of Christ”.“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).”
Look at the Tridentine Mass- then look at the Novus Ordo, then look at Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist Sunday services.Could you then please tell us what exactly they did? What prayers did the contribute to, or not, etc.? A fact of history that I’ve seen no proponent address. Nor has it it been done so on this thread.
Could you then please tell us what exactly they did? What prayers did the contribute to, or not, etc.? A fact of history that I’ve seen no proponent address. Nor has it it been done so on this thread.
Can you post the actual quote, then? I’m unable to find anything that contradicts it on the internet. Are you saying that he didn’t say that, but said something else (ex, poor translation into English) or that someone did say it, but it wasn’t Bugnini?Sorry, as I said in a thread recently, this quote is highly inaccurate bordering on false.
Found the answer in a post from 2005 in the CA forum, actually.Can you post the actual quote, then? I’m unable to find anything that contradicts it on the internet. Are you saying that he didn’t say that, but said something else (ex, poor translation into English) or that someone did say it, but it wasn’t Bugnini?
thanks
Critics falsely attribute to Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the body that Pope Paul VI set up to implement the Second Vatican Council’s decree on the liturgy, the statement: “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”, and claim that this was published on L’Osservatore Romano of 19 March 1965.
The bad-faith attribution to Father Bugnini of these words is evident, when they are compared with what he actually wrote on that issue of L’Osservatore Romano: “Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices” (page 6, column 4).
The sacrifices that Father Bugnini felt were painful to make concerned some familiar words omitted from one particular prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer, previously titled “For the unity of the Church”, is now headed “For the unity of Christians” (the Church is always one). Instead of “heretics” and “schismatics”, it now speaks of “all our brethren who believe in Jesus Christ” and asks “that God may gather and keep together in his one Church all those who seek the truth in sincerity.”
These words are still VERY troublesome. As if the Liturgy of the Holy Mass had any impediments. Who cares if we offend people, particularly non-Catholics? Our Lord said things that people reacted horribly to all the time. He was accused of blasphemy and crucified for it, even tho’ He never spoke anything but the Truth. I would be more concerned about offending Our Lord in changing what Tradition has passed onto us. To boot, there hasn’t been the conversions that were suppose to happen with all the changes. Non-Catholics haven’t entered the Church in droves, but there have been droves of Catholics leaving the Church.“Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices” (page 6, column 4).
He is not speaking of the Mass. He is speaking of the Holy Week, specifically the 7th oration and it only makes sense if you read it in the article. I’m not sure how exact the translation BenFischer supplied (thanks, I didn’t know one was online ) is in some areas - specifically the area you highlighted- so the Italian of this is:These words are still VERY troublesome. As if the Liturgy of the Holy Mass had any impediments.
L’ orazione 7a reca il titolo: «Per l’unità dei cristiani» (non «della Chiesa»), che è stata sempre una). Non si parla più di «eretici» e «scismatici», ma di «tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo». Il testo completo dice:
Preghiamo per tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo: – O Signore Dio nostro, concede che essi, – seguendo la verità, – siano riuniti e custoditi nell’unica tua Chiesa…(the text of the prayer)
It seems to be more like “by removing the stone[impediment] that can cause…”…Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel .(phrase from prayer)… della settima orazione? E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
It is still a Catholic liturgical prayer that is offered in the most solemn liturgy of all, Good Friday. Honestly, the quote isn’t very clear what he is referring to and nothing suggests he didn’t make two separate comments.He is not speaking of the Mass. He is speaking of the Holy Week, specifically the 7th oration and it only makes sense if you read it in the article. I’m not sure how exact the translation BenFischer supplied (thanks, I didn’t know one was online ) is in some areas - specifically the area you highlighted- so the Italian of this is:
It seems to be more like “by removing the stone[impediment] that can cause…”
Actually there is. I was feeling a bit lazy so I omitted quoting the part he quoted in Latin which is from the introduction to the 1962-and-before Good Friday prayer for heretics and schismatics and replaced it with “(phrase from prayer)” I also edited the bits of thoroughly useless pious sentiment that was along the lines of we-felt-this-great-burden-of-history-changing-something-so-venerable blah blah.It is still a Catholic liturgical prayer that is offered in the most solemn liturgy of all, Good Friday. Honestly, the quote isn’t very clear what he is referring to and nothing suggests he didn’t make two separate comments.
There, at least, I can agree with you, more or less.I still say there wasn’t an impediment.
Here he is speaking of the Latin Mass, which he wanted to get rid of. From his book* Reform of the Liturgy* in his words.He is not speaking of the Mass. He is speaking of the Holy Week, specifically the 7th oration and it only makes sense if you read it in the article. I’m not sure how exact the translation BenFischer supplied (thanks, I didn’t know one was online ) is in some areas - specifically the area you highlighted- so the Italian of this is:
It seems to be more like “by removing the stone[impediment] that can cause…”
I can see that and I certainly don’t doubt that what with his “spirit and truth” stuff, but how does this relate to the Protestants or what (name removed by moderator)ut they gave?Here he is speaking of the Latin Mass, which he wanted to get rid of. From his book* Reform of the Liturgy* in his words.