Protestants Created the New Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HCC

Guest
View attachment 9055
I have been told and have read, time and again, all the arguments by schismatic sects that the New Mass was created with the help of 6 Protestants ministers, yet they are never named. Who are these people? Who brought them in? What was their role exactly?

The only one I have ever read that has been identified, is a Lutheran, “Dr Smith.”

Then I have read statements that have been allegedly made such as:

Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”

And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to 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.”

Can anyone give me the sources and context for these alleged statements and any others of the same sort?

I am simply trying to understand the arguments.
 
HCC said:
View attachment 9055
I have been told and have read, time and again, all the arguments by schismatic sects that the New Mass was created with the help of 6 Protestants ministers, yet they are never named. Who are these people? Who brought them in? What was their role exactly?

The only one I have ever read that has been identified, is a Lutheran, “Dr Smith.”

Then I have read statements that have been allegedly made such as:

Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”

And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to 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.”

Can anyone give me the sources and context for these alleged statements and any others of the same sort?

I am simply trying to understand the arguments.
Click to expand...
The “strip out the Catholicism” quote is an enduring myth. As best I can tell, it originates from an offhanded paraphrase by Lefebvre of something Abp. Bugnini wrote in an article in L’Osservatore Romano about the changes to the Good Friday prayers. Bugnini was explaining why “heretic” language was removed, and he wrote:
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.
My Italian is not perfect (better at Latin and Spanish), but a faithful translation would say,
And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.
That’s just not remotely close to:
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.
What words are in this that isn’t in the original? – “strip,” “Catholic,” “prayers,” “liturgy,” “shadow,” “Protestants.” That’s not a translation; it’s a fabrication. And it had nothing to do with a general method of approaching Catholic prayers or anything else about the Mass; it was strictly a discussion of why certain changes were made to the Good Friday prayers.

Yet this is perpetually circulated.
 
Yes there were Protestants at the consilium but they did not have any voting power nor did they design the mass. They were observers, just as there were Protestant observers at Vatican II. In fact, the Protestants were so impressed by the work done by the concilium that they incorporated much of the new Cathoic rites into their own rites. They also adopted the three year cycle of readings.
 
What is the “new Mass”?

Are you talking moving from Latin Masses to English Masses?
 
Joannm said:
Yes there were Protestants at the consilium but they did not have any voting power nor did they design the mass.
Click to expand...
What would be the odds that at a 7-person meeting of any kind, six would try to provide no (name removed by moderator)ut at all?
 
ProVobis said:
What would be the odds that at a 7-person meeting of any kind, six would try to provide no (name removed by moderator)ut at all?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you got the idea that of the seven attendees at Vatican II, six were protestants, who (using your arithmetics) would likely have a profound influence.

Here’s what the Wikipedia entry on Vatican II says about attendance:

Preparations for the Council took more than two years, and included work from 10 specialised commissions, people for mass media and Christian Unity, and a Central Commission for overall coordination. These groups, composed mostly of members of the Roman Curia, produced 987 proposed constituting sessions, making it the largest gathering in any council in church history. (This compares to Vatican I, where 737 attended, mostly from Europe.)[11] Attendance varied in later sessions from 2,100 to over 2,300. In addition, a varying number of periti (Latin: “experts”) were available for theological consultation — a group that turned out to have a major influence as the council went forward. Seventeen Orthodox Churches and Protestant denominations sent observers.[1] More than three dozen representatives of other Christian communities were present at the opening session, and the number grew to nearly 100 by the end of the 4th Council Period.

I doubt that the small number of protestant observers had the kind of influence on the Council that you are suggesting.
 
Six Protestant ministers and Pope Paul the VI changed the Mass. Oh, the intrigue.
 
Alan55 said:
I’m not sure where you got the idea that of the seven attendees at Vatican II, six were protestants, who (using your arithmetics) would likely have a profound influence.
Click to expand...
I guess I misread the post then. I thought I was replying to the issue of six Protestant “observers” when Bugnini was writing his Mass, not Vatican II.
 
Barbkw said:
What is the “new Mass”?

Are you talking moving from Latin Masses to English Masses?
Click to expand...
in the sense you are thinking yes, but the correct way to word this is “Tridintine Rite” and “Novus Ordo Rite” the Novus Ordo is actually in Latin, the use of the vernacular is permitted by Rome however…
 
Well Catholics created the Mass to bring in Protestants…that would be more accurate I think.
 
Barbkw said:
What is the “new Mass”?

Are you talking moving from Latin Masses to English Masses?
Click to expand...
The Ordinary Form differs from the Extraordinary Form:

1./ Psalm 42 is replaced by the entering process

2./ Confiteor (the rite of penance) is shortened, and the priest recites it with the people (unfortunately in many churches it is skipped entirely)

3./ The readings cover significantly larger part of the Scriptures, and the Prayers of the faithful is added in the OF

4./ The offertory prayers are changed. Usually this is considered as favor for the protestants. Those are prayed in inaudible voice in the EF always, and in most OF too.

5./ The Canon has several versions, and unfortunately in most Churches the traditional Canon is never read.

6./ The words of the consecration are slightly changed.

7./ The rite of peace for the faithful is added in the OF

8./ In closing part the New Mass first gives the benediction the send the people in peace; in the EF first is the Ite missa est, than the benediction then additional prayers.

Above that in the Ordinary Form if the people pray or sung something that priest do not repeat it.
 
They were tokens
Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).
Click to expand...
Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).
Click to expand...
Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).
Click to expand...
Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).
Click to expand...
Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148).
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html
Click to expand...
Bugnini’s posse wouldn’t have shared the credit

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/bugnini-i-am-the-liturgical-reform/
 
On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

Why is it that the Pauline Mass is credited to the six protestant observers who were invited to Vatican II, but the protestant observers who were invited to the Council of Trent are never given credit for the Tridentine Missal???
 
rben20 said:
Well Catholics created the Mass to bring in Protestants…that would be more accurate I think.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ actually created the Mass on a Thursday evening to bring EVERYONE into His Church. Back in or around 33 AD.

But I know, you are talking about the post -VII Novus Ordo Missae 😉
 
2./ Confiteor (the rite of penance) is shortened, and the priest recites it with the people (unfortunately in many churches it is skipped entirely)

As a revert, I miss that this prayer isn’t being said at every Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top