Protestant Elements in the Missal of Pope Paul VI

[Timothysis]

Greetings,

For some time I have read from certain quarters here that Mass according to the current Roman Missal (the Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the “Novus Ordo”) is protestant, or at least has protestant “elements” in it. Whenever I challenge one of these accusations to show me from the missal itself what is protestant, I get the same non answer (altar girls, women doing the readings, Eucharistic ministers). Invariably, it always descends to “there were six protestant clergymen present at Vatican II,” even though I point out that there were protestant observers at many sessions of the Council of Trent, yet this is dismissed as inconsequential. I can’t determine why protestant observers at Vatican II are bad, but protestant observers at Trent were ok.

Anyway, I ask if anyone can show me anything in the Pauline Missal that is protestant; and I don’t mean anything that can be “interpreted” as protestant because there is always someone who can read something different into a given meaning (is over 30,000 different protestant denominations a good enough example?). It is my contention that the Pauline Missal is distinctly Catholic, that it represents the constant and traditional Catholic faith and that it is every bit as efficacious as any other liturgy within the Catholic Church. While the prayers themselves may not be as “rich” as those from the Tridentine Missal, they still have to me a simple elegance. As for the Eucharistic Prayer, it is really number III that needs be addressed, since EP I is the traditional Roman Canon and EP II is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus.

Thank you!

 

[malphono]

I’m just doing this to drive you crazy,Tim, but please let me make a couple of comments anyway:

For some time I have read from certain quarters here that Mass according to the current Roman Missal (the Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the “Novus Ordo”) is protestant, or at least has protestant “elements” in it. Whenever I challenge one of these accusations to show me from the missal itself what is protestant, I get the same non answer (altar girls, women doing the readings, Eucharistic ministers). Invariably, it always descends to “there were six protestant clergymen present at Vatican II,” even though I point out that there were protestant observers at many sessions of the Council of Trent, yet this is dismissed as inconsequential. I can’t determine why protestant observers at Vatican II are bad, but protestant observers at Trent were ok.

It seems to me the bone of contention as-it-were about the “Protestant observers” is less about the Council and more about the Consilium that came up with what is now called the OF.

Anyway, I ask if anyone can show me anything in the Pauline Missal that is protestant; and I don’t mean anything that can be “interpreted” as protestant because there is always someone who can read something different into a given meaning (is over 30,000 different protestant denominations a good enough example?). It is my contention that the Pauline Missal is distinctly Catholic, that it represents the constant and traditional Catholic faith and that it is every bit as efficacious as any other liturgy within the Catholic Church. While the prayers themselves may not be as “rich” as those from the Tridentine Missal, they still have to me a simple elegance.

Frankly, as I’ve said in other threads, I don’t think it’s “Protestant” but it is so stripped-down that I can’t say that the OF Missal is distinctly anything. In a way it reminds me of Wonder Bread: although I haven’t touched the stuff in 40+ years, I suppose can be used to make a sandwich, but it has neither taste nor texture. Not quite my idea of yummy but I guess there are those who like it.

As for the Eucharistic Prayer, it is really number III that needs be addressed, since EP I is the traditional Roman Canon and EP II is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus.

And EP IV is, apparently, so rarely used that it doesn’t even count.

 

[Timothysis]

Frankly, as I’ve said in other threads, I don’t think it’s “Protestant” but it is so stripped-down that I can’t say that the OF Missal is distinctly anything.

If you cannot see the OF missal as being distinctly “anything,” then I suppose that says more about your understanding of the Mass than about the missal itself. And I don’t mean this as a “shot;” as the Church Herself says:

"*In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:

The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent in accordance with the universal tradition of the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17, 1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again, and made this highly significant comment: "At the Last Supper our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again;" (Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy #47)."

This foreword describes the New Order of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants specifically deny. The Pauline Mass affirms these things; it was not designed to please Protestants by compromising Catholic doctrine whatsoever (Whitehead, p. 80). "*

 

[boatbearer]

Greetings,

For some time I have read from certain quarters here that Mass according to the current Roman Missal (the Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the “Novus Ordo”) is protestant, or at least has protestant “elements” in it. Whenever I challenge one of these accusations to show me from the missal itself what is protestant, I get the same non answer (altar girls, women doing the readings, Eucharistic ministers). Invariably, it always descends to “there were six protestant clergymen present at Vatican II,” even though I point out that there were protestant observers at many sessions of the Council of Trent, yet this is dismissed as inconsequential. I can’t determine why protestant observers at Vatican II are bad, but protestant observers at Trent were ok.

The OF Mass is not “protestant” although some use that label as a way to disparage what they have been conditioned to dislike or do not understand. It’s very clear the biggest contributing model for the OF Mass is the liturgy of the early church. Many would never acknowledge that even if they were aware of the history.

Anyway, I ask if anyone can show me anything in the Pauline Missal that is protestant; and I don’t mean anything that can be “interpreted” as protestant because there is always someone who can read something different into a given meaning (is over 30,000 different protestant denominations a good enough example?). It is my contention that the Pauline Missal is distinctly Catholic, that it represents the constant and traditional Catholic faith and that it is every bit as efficacious as any other liturgy within the Catholic Church. While the prayers themselves may not be as “rich” as those from the Tridentine Missal, they still have to me a simple elegance. As for the Eucharistic Prayer, it is really number III that needs be addressed, since EP I is the traditional Roman Canon and EP II is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus.

Thank you!

It is distinctly Catholic! As for the charge that the OF Mass is “stripped down”, I would suggest that those making such charges has a poor grasp of liturgy in general or for some reason they feel the need to attack the OF Mass. Perhaps they charge the OF Mass with being “protestant” as a means to make the EF Mass look better in comparison? Verbosity is not necessarily a sign of good liturgy. More often than not it’s a sign of bad liturgy.

In the end if you like the OF best then go to the OF. If you like the EF best then go to the EF. It’s absurd to infer that one form of the Mass is superior to another. It’s all about which nourishes us each individually in the best way.

 

[malphono]

If you cannot see the OF missal as being distinctly “anything,” then I suppose that says more about your understanding of the Mass than about the missal itself. And I don’t mean this as a “shot;” as the Church Herself says:

Isn’t quoting the OF Missal in defense of the OF like quoting Nixon in defense of Nixon?

In any case, one thing I have no intention of doing is explaining my degree of “understanding” of the Mass. Not a “shot,” eh? Could have fooled me. If I were new to these parts, I might understand it, but by now you should know me better than that. The barb was uncalled for and yes, I resent it.

Whatever. Doesn’t matter. I’m only sorry that I wasted my time. I should have known better.

 

[japhy]

For some time I have read from certain quarters here that Mass according to the current Roman Missal (the Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the “Novus Ordo”) is protestant, or at least has protestant “elements” in it.

A common claim is the doxology after the Our Father is a Protestant addition. It’s actually a very very old prayer (found in the Didache). While it may have been included for ecumenical purposes (among others), it is not in itself Protestant.

As for the Eucharistic Prayer, it is really number III that needs be addressed, since EP I is the traditional Roman Canon and EP II is the ancient anaphora of St. Hippolytus.

EP III and EP IV are new, yes, but quite Catholic; EP IV is very similar to an Eastern anaphora. EP II is an adaptation of the Hippolytan canon, although critics have noted that it makes no mention of “victim” (hostia) or “sacrifice” (sacrificium); they see it is the most Protestant-friendly Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[stephraim]

If you cannot see the OF missal as being distinctly “anything,” then I suppose that says more about your understanding of the Mass than about the missal itself. And I don’t mean this as a “shot;”

That was harsh, and though you meant no offense, it was unnecessary.

The Ordinary Form is extraordinarily stripped down in what seems like an attempt to revert to the extremely austere and terse practicality of 1st millennium Romans. Much ceremonial of the Extraordinary Form is of Gallican origin, as can be seen from the Gregorian sacramentary and Ordo Romanus primus, and it’s my guess that the compilers (or creators, if you will) of the Ordinary Form sought to recreate “Roman simplicity”.

Either way, a reverent celebration of the Ordinary Form strictly according to the rubrics, especially with chanted propers, readings, prayers (including the General Intercessions), and the priest ad orientem, is extremely moving and spiritually rewarding (for me, at least) and is very Catholic. This stripped down, austere, terse liturgy suits my demeanor. Others simply prefer more heavenly rhetoric, sublime ceremonial, and mystical interpretation of elements because it suits their demeanors, and that’s perfectly normal and natural.

 

[I_Fortuna]

Frankly, as I’ve said in other threads, I don’t think it’s “Protestant” but it is so stripped-down that I can’t say that the OF Missal is distinctly anything. In a way it reminds me of Wonder Bread: although I haven’t touched the stuff in 40+ years, I suppose can be used to make a sandwich, but it has neither taste nor texture. Not quite my idea of yummy but I guess there are those who like it.

And EP IV is, apparently, so rarely used that it doesn’t even count.

How can you be offended by any remark made concerning this issue when you have completely subordinated it and taken your own shot to compare a missal to Wonder Bread. Is it o.k. for you to use sarcasm or taske a shotand no one else? Take the log out of your eye.

 

[curlycool89]

The OF Mass is not “protestant” although some use that label as a way to disparage what they have been conditioned to dislike or do not understand. It’s very clear the biggest contributing model for the OF Mass is the liturgy of the early church. Many would never acknowledge that even if they were aware of the history.

It is. All you need to do to check that is look at CCC #1345. This is what St. Justin Martyr wrote:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. So the Liturgy of the Word

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. The Homily

Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. Prayers of the faithful

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Sing of peace, which was moved to after the EP

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. The Offertory

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. Eucharistic Prayer

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’ The Great Amen

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent. Communion

It’s all right from the early Church.

 

[boatbearer]

A common claim is the doxology after the Our Father is a Protestant addition. It’s actually a very very old prayer (found in the Didache). While it may have been included for ecumenical purposes (among others), it is not in itself Protestant.

Some great historical insight that is lost on many.

I was recently in a heated discussion with a friend over the Catholic Book of Common Worship used for Anglican-Use Masses. It truly is a wonderful and orthodox work based on the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer.

No matter how beautiful and orthodox of a work the BoCW is, it must be condemned in his eyes because it’s based on the BoCP, a work of Cranmer. What he doesn’t realize is that Cranmer’s influences were Catholic. Historically Catholic at that!

 

[malphono]

How can you be offended by any remark made concerning this issue when you have completely subordinated it and taken your own shot to compare a missal to Wonder Bread. Is it o.k. for you to use sarcasm or taske a shotand no one else? Take the log out of your eye.

There’s nothing to say here: saying anything in reply to that would be another monumental waste of time.

 

[boatbearer]

It is. All you need to do to check that is look at CCC #1345. This is what St. Justin Martyr wrote:

It’s all right from the early Church.

Wonderful information! Thank you!

 

[Timothysis]

Isn’t quoting the OF Missal in defense of the OF like quoting Nixon in defense of Nixon?

Nixon wasn’t Catholic.

In any case, one thing I have no intention of doing is explaining my degree of “understanding” of the Mass. Not a “shot,” eh? Could have fooled me. If I were new to these parts, I might understand it, but by now you should know me better than that. The barb was uncalled for and yes, I resent it.

I honestly say that I did not mean that as a “shot.” YOU were the one who claimed that the OF is not distinctly “anything.” If you cannot see “anything” distinctly Catholic in this:
*
“And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.”*

then I think the issue lies more with you and less with the liturgy. Seriously.

Whatever. Doesn’t matter. I’m only sorry that I wasted my time. I should have known better.

Me too. By the way, you never did answer the question.

 

[malphono]

Nixon wasn’t Catholic.

Touché

I honestly say that I did not mean that as a “shot.” YOU were the one who claimed that the OF is not distinctly “anything.” If you cannot see “anything” distinctly Catholic in this:
*
“And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.”*

then I think the issue lies more with you and less with the liturgy. Seriously.

OK. And yes, I said that and I meant it. I also said I don’t subscribe to the “it’s Protestant” position. Sure, (to repeat myself from the other thread), the epiklesis is quite clear but that’s not the point: the whole flavor of the OF is bland to me. No, there’s nothing distinctly “Protestant” but I really don’t see anything distinctly Catholic either. For me, it’s totally bland. Hence the Wonder Bread analogy.

Me too.

OK. Hatchet buried.

By the way, you never did answer the question.

Which question? Did I miss something?

 

[Timothysis]

Some great historical insight that is lost on many.

I was recently in a heated discussion with a friend over the Catholic Book of Common Worship used for Anglican-Use Masses. It truly is a wonderful and orthodox work based on the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer.

No matter how beautiful and orthodox of a work the BoCW is, it must be condemned in his eyes because it’s based on the BoCP, a work of Cranmer. What he doesn’t realize is that Cranmer’s influences were Catholic. Historically Catholic at that!

Very interesting. It does seem that many of those who call the Pauline Missal “protestant” do it, not based on the missal itself, but on the idea that it was created to appease protestant thinking. In this sense, they really want to throw the baby out with the dish water.

But like said above, I don’t mind either way if one prefers the EF or the OF, but to say that the OF is “protestant” is neither true nor charitable to those who appreciate it.

 

[boatbearer]

Very interesting. It does seem that many of those who call the Pauline Missal “protestant” do it, not based on the missal itself, but on the idea that it was created to appease protestant thinking. In this sense, they really want to throw the baby out with the dish water.

But like said above, I don’t mind either way if one prefers the EF or the OF, but to say that the OF is “protestant” is neither true nor charitable to those who appreciate it.

I think that boils down largely to the application of extremist, conspiracy theory ideas. More than one of my interests has its own fringe group huddled in a corner speaking the bitter language of conspiracy theory. Whether it’s extremists taking aim on the Church with regard to the liturgy or other extremists taking aim (no pun) at the US Gov’t with regard to firearms it’s important to remember that their conspiracy theories are based largely on ignorance leading to emotion rather than hard facts.

I think in the case of the Mass, there is also a real effort by some (either consciously or unconsciously) to denigrate the OF in the hopes of burnishing the EF. Such attempts backfire and it can lead to some real emotion.

 

[Hereswith]

This is all interesting, but as a former Protestant I have to giggle at the whole discussion. After all, in most Protestant churches, there is no “Mass”.

I hate when Protestants bash Catholicism out of ignorance, and it is equally disgusting when Catholics bash Protestants out of ignorance. We all have much more in common than not.

 

[boatbearer]

This is all interesting, but as a former Protestant I have to giggle at the whole discussion. After all, in most Protestant churches, there is no “Mass”.

I hate when Protestants bash Catholicism out of ignorance, and it is equally disgusting when Catholics bash Protestants out of ignorance. We all have much more in common than not.

There is no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass within any (not “most”) Protestant group. Many Protestant groups do however have what they consider to be sacrificial liturgies, most notably the Anglicans and the Lutherans.

 

[muledog]

Very interesting. It does seem that many of those who call the Pauline Missal “protestant” do it, not based on the missal itself, but on the idea that it was created to appease protestant thinking. In this sense, they really want to throw the baby out with the dish water.

But like said above, I don’t mind either way if one prefers the EF or the OF, but to say that the OF is “protestant” is neither true nor charitable to those who appreciate it.

I think that we can discuss this issue without painting those who disagree as knuckle-dragging neanderthals. Non-other than Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani, then-head of the Holy Office, claimed in his “Intervention” to Pope Paul VI 1969 that

The New Order of Mass appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman Liturgy came closest to the Eastern rites. At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy, and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo.

 

[Timothysis]

I think that we can discuss this issue without painting those who disagree as knuckle-dragging neanderthals.

I never suggested as much.

Non-other than Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani, then-head of the Holy Office, claimed in his “Intervention” to Pope Paul VI 1969 that

And none other that Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani said this AFTER the promulgation of the Pauline Missal:

"“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED.”