Protestants Created the New Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Sentry said:
Ok ok, people, after all these years I must finally confess:

I wrote the “New Mass,” along with 5 of my friends. It was indeed a conspiracy. No, I don’t regret it. And I’d do it again!!! 😃
Click to expand...
Are you a freelance priest? 🙂
 
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...
many different religions were asked to come to the second vatican council and observe. none however voted on any aspect of catholic dogma. when you his this argument from people just pray and them and advise them to seek professional help.
 
I have the idea that ‘Protestants influenced the New Mass’ idea got going because faithful lay Catholics, who loved the old rite and devotions, couldn’t believe that a majority of their bishops could vote for that which followed after Vat. II.

It just doesn’t seem credible. Easier to believe that a Masonic priest and Protestant attendees fixed it all up.
 
Layman said:
I have the idea that ‘Protestants influenced the New Mass’ idea got going because faithful lay Catholics, who loved the old rite and devotions, couldn’t believe that a majority of their bishops could vote for that which followed after Vat. II.

It just doesn’t seem credible. Easier to believe that a Masonic priest and Protestant attendees fixed it all up.
Click to expand...
True, but at the same time it’s difficult to see how the Protestants, observers or otherwise, could have accepted another Mass in Latin.
 
So, when we attend a “Novus Ordo Mass” we should be aware that it was written by six Protestants…and Annibale Bugnini.

Does that include when the “Novus Ordo Mass” is celebrated using Eucharistic Prayer I (also known as the Roman Canon)? Because if that’s the case, then Bugnini and those six Protestants must have written the Tridentine Mass, too.

Or did they write Canon II…with Hippolytus? Or was it IV which dates back, in essence, to about 380 AD? Quite the time-travellers, these men. They could have written Eucharistic Prayer III, I suppose; that’s a new one. But I challenge anyone to find anything especially Protestant about it.

I think it’s safe to say that the Roman Catholic Mass was not “written” by anyone but deeply poetic ancient Christians and modern-day Catholics. Whichever liturgy we’re talking about, It was composed by one and the same Christian Church, the Catholic Church, and its roots, no matter which text, run straight back in time through the ages to the Upper Room. It is all “Catholic”. It is all “Traditional”.

You will search in vain for anything Protestant about the Mass.
 
Just to play Devil’s Advocate [heh heh]:

There’s also Sacrosanctum Consilium. If what the author here says is true, it’s a bad legal document. It’s open to wide and liberal interpretation.

Thus you have the New Mass. No skullduggery required. " …with due respect to particular law", “other things being equal”, “to adapt more closely to the needs of our age”.

Signed off by the Pope and approved by a majority of the Bishops, I understand(?) If so, no conspiracy required.
 
Layman said:
Just to play Devil’s Advocate [heh heh]:
Thus you have the New Mass. No skullduggery required. " …with due respect to particular law", “other things being equal”, “to adapt more closely to the needs of our age”.

Signed off by the Pope and approved by a majority of the Bishops, I understand(?) If so, no conspiracy required.
Click to expand...
Continuing with the devil’s advocacy (:)) this definition of the promulgated Mass was also signed off by the Pope:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in their midst’” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

No Protestant influence?
 
laszlo said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s nice for a start. 😉
 
ProVobis said:
True, but at the same time it’s difficult to see how the Protestants, observers or otherwise, could have accepted another Mass in Latin.
Click to expand...
the Novus Ordo is in Latin, it is authorized to celebrate it in the vernacular, but these are translations
 
Pregustator said:
So, when we attend a “Novus Ordo Mass” we should be aware that it was written by six Protestants…and Annibale Bugnini.

Does that include when the “Novus Ordo Mass” is celebrated using Eucharistic Prayer I (also known as the Roman Canon)? Because if that’s the case, then Bugnini and those six Protestants must have written the Tridentine Mass, too.

Or did they write Canon II…with Hippolytus? Or was it IV which dates back, in essence, to about 380 AD? Quite the time-travellers, these men. They could have written Eucharistic Prayer III, I suppose; that’s a new one. But I challenge anyone to find anything especially Protestant about it.

I think it’s safe to say that the Roman Catholic Mass was not “written” by anyone but deeply poetic ancient Christians and modern-day Catholics. Whichever liturgy we’re talking about, It was composed by one and the same Christian Church, the Catholic Church, and its roots, no matter which text, run straight back in time through the ages to the Upper Room. It is all “Catholic”. It is all “Traditional”.

You will search in vain for anything Protestant about the Mass.
Click to expand...
Even the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer 1 in the NO) was changed, for example the removal of the “Unde et Memores” which in the Tridentine mass offers up Jesus as the spotless Victim; in general the new Mass has had almost all language removed referring to the Holy Sacrifice. To me this removed something that was uniquely Catholic. Whether this is due to some conspiracy of Protestants or Freemasons, or just the work of misguided Catholics I don’t know and don’t really care - I would just like to see the Mass restored to its sacrificial and reverential character.
 
I ask the reader to focus on the two themes of the SC which are apparent from the quoted provisions: (a) open-ended authorization for liturgical reform on what is potentially a vast scale, but without requiring that any particular reform of the liturgy be enacted or avoided; and (b) “democratization” of the liturgy by ceding effective liturgical control to the “ecclesiastical territorial authority” of each country, and the liturgy commissions to be established in each diocese.

latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm

Mr. Ferrara should read the Sacrosanctum Concilium.

There is no open ended authorization neither democratization:

A) General norms
22. 1.** Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church,** that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

As a matter of fact the New rite today is no more diverse than it was before the 1570 reform, which forced the Roman rite on everyone, and lost half of Europe for the Protestantism.

Naturally the reason were not so simplistic neither than nor are now, but the fact (loosing half of Europe in the time of the Council of Trent) is fact.

The New rite did not get back the Protestants, but at least kept one sixth of the Word population as Catholics.
 
laszlo said:
As a matter of fact the New rite today is no more diverse than it was before the 1570 reform, which forced the Roman rite on everyone, and lost half of Europe for the Protestantism.
Click to expand...
The Reformers already had done their work (of heresy and liturgical changes) before 1570; that why the Council of Trent was called and Quo Primum was written to clear the church of the heresies accumulated in all its liturgies created after 1370 AD. Though altered, there was no new Roman rite created in 1570 AD. And losing heretics is not a bad thing, in my opinion.

I think this is what you were trying to say, but I’m not sure.
 
laszlo said:
As a matter of fact the New rite today is no more diverse than it was before the 1570 reform, which forced the Roman rite on everyone, and lost half of Europe for the Protestantism.
Click to expand...
That is a good point, but wasn’t the codified Mass an attempt to secure unity in worship ? That was the point, to have the Mass prayed the same everywhere, instead of so many variations. Just as we see today. As I’ve observed from visiting several parishes in my area, I never know what to expect with the OF. All are Catholic Mass, but the liberal application of the rubrics, some not even in the GIRM, is distracting.

We seem to be back to square one… before Trent addressed such discrepancies.🤷
 
i think paul vi hoped that the new mass would bring protestants into the church. good intention, but still a bad idea in my opinion. there’s no doubt that the new mass, as it was fabricated and implemented stripped much of the perceived sacredness from the mass to bring about that ‘noble simplicity’ called for in sacrosanctum concilium.
 
Timothysis said:
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???
Click to expand...
I think it is because the Holy Catholic Church has be turned upside down since Vatican II.
 
Yes, it’s easier for a pious Catholic to believe that outsiders were the cause of the ructions in our religion, than believe that a large swathe of the hierarchy were responsible for (and quite happy with?) the reforms post Vat. II.
 
There were probably Protestant “observers” when Pope Pius V issued Quo Primum. I’m sure they weren’t very happy about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top