A
AJV
Guest
I was prompted to open this thread instead of hijacking another one by the comment on the New Order of the Mass being created by a committee of Catholics and Protestants. It’s also a question with a wider scope.
A common argument against the new rite by some is that it is a Protestantized rite. Further most people point ot the fact that 6 Protestant observers were present. In fact, as may also be known, there were frequent denials issued that the Protestant observers participated in the creation of the texts of the Mass. Bugnini for example, in his books, notes that one thing they did say was in favour of the Traditional lectionery. However, many are not convinced by the denials - indeed, such a personage as the late Michael Davies wrote
“These denials have since been cited by apologists for the official reform as “refutations” of the allegation that Protestant Observers had taken an active part in the compilation of the new rites. There is, however, a considerable difference between a denial and a refutation, and these particular denials are totally gratuitous and contradict the available evidence.”
Perhaps the keyword here was “available evidence” because Mr. Davies may not have had, as do not most today, access to the schemas of the Mass proposed from 1964. In fact, the schemas reveal that in precisely the areas where the “Protestantizing” is supposed to have occurred, the Concilium had already made the changes before the Protestants came on the scene.
The observers came in in 1966 - mostly, as is confirmed by multiple sources - because of associate work going on in a liturgical direction especially among the Lutheran and Anglican communities (in this light, as additional evidence for refutation of Protestantizing, Dr. Jasper’s memoir/book on reform in the Anglican Communion is very helpful ). However, by that time, there was at least 4 proposed schemas of the Mass.
To summarize - the two chief areas where people suspect Protestantism are the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Offertory prayers. Now, in fact, both of these were singled out for reform much before the Protestants came on the scene.
It started with the declaratio on what was to become the famous article 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The declaratio was later made available to the Council Fathers and a copy is found on page 289 of the Acts of the Council. In commenting what was meant by the wording, the preparatory commission wrote
In any event, looking at the schemas from 1964, we see that the first Specimen Provisorum did away with the Prayers of the Foot of the Altar altogether, starting the Mass at the Introit. The Offertory “Suscipe Sancte Pater” and “Offerimus tibi” was replaced by a single prayer 'Sicut hic panis" based on the Didache. There is a new prayer for the mixing “Vinum ex aqua”. Then followed the “In spiritu humilitatis”. New/Conjoined prayers were written for the incensing and the washing of the hands (“Incensum istud” and “Ne accedamus”). The Orate Fratres was (tentatively) replaced by Oremus. The 1965 drafts only have 3 prayers at the offertory - "Sicut hic panis (modified) , “Sapientia aedificavit” and “In spiritu humilitatis”. Like 1964, the omit the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar altogether and discuss a pentiential rite - a possible one suggested in the footnote sis the troping of the Kyrie as in the 1970 Form C. In fact, in the relatio’s of this period, the question from pre-conciliar is carried over: wehther to have a pentiential rite and where to place it. In any event, the ommissions were already made before the Protestant observers came on the scene in 1966.
Another objection that people point to are avant garde Eucharistic liturgies like Taize. Leaving aside the thorny questions aout where exactly Taize’s rite falls in the liturgical spectrum, the interest in Eucharistic Studies had led to common ideas abotu what the Eucharistic Liturgy should look like. Witness for example, Dix’s appropriately titled tome “The Shape of the Liturgy”. It should not surprise one then that there was agreement on placing a Kyrie at the beginning or omitting devotional prayers in order (where correctly or not) to stress other parts of the Mass. These were common liturgical ideas, not borrowings from Protestantism
A common argument against the new rite by some is that it is a Protestantized rite. Further most people point ot the fact that 6 Protestant observers were present. In fact, as may also be known, there were frequent denials issued that the Protestant observers participated in the creation of the texts of the Mass. Bugnini for example, in his books, notes that one thing they did say was in favour of the Traditional lectionery. However, many are not convinced by the denials - indeed, such a personage as the late Michael Davies wrote
“These denials have since been cited by apologists for the official reform as “refutations” of the allegation that Protestant Observers had taken an active part in the compilation of the new rites. There is, however, a considerable difference between a denial and a refutation, and these particular denials are totally gratuitous and contradict the available evidence.”
Perhaps the keyword here was “available evidence” because Mr. Davies may not have had, as do not most today, access to the schemas of the Mass proposed from 1964. In fact, the schemas reveal that in precisely the areas where the “Protestantizing” is supposed to have occurred, the Concilium had already made the changes before the Protestants came on the scene.
The observers came in in 1966 - mostly, as is confirmed by multiple sources - because of associate work going on in a liturgical direction especially among the Lutheran and Anglican communities (in this light, as additional evidence for refutation of Protestantizing, Dr. Jasper’s memoir/book on reform in the Anglican Communion is very helpful ). However, by that time, there was at least 4 proposed schemas of the Mass.
To summarize - the two chief areas where people suspect Protestantism are the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Offertory prayers. Now, in fact, both of these were singled out for reform much before the Protestants came on the scene.
It started with the declaratio on what was to become the famous article 50 of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The declaratio was later made available to the Council Fathers and a copy is found on page 289 of the Acts of the Council. In commenting what was meant by the wording, the preparatory commission wrote
So it can be said that while the Fathers approved a sentence with this meaning, they perhaps would not have approved of the new prayers at the foot of the altar, certainly the text on the Offertory makes clear that there is to be a removal of sacrificial language.
In any event, looking at the schemas from 1964, we see that the first Specimen Provisorum did away with the Prayers of the Foot of the Altar altogether, starting the Mass at the Introit. The Offertory “Suscipe Sancte Pater” and “Offerimus tibi” was replaced by a single prayer 'Sicut hic panis" based on the Didache. There is a new prayer for the mixing “Vinum ex aqua”. Then followed the “In spiritu humilitatis”. New/Conjoined prayers were written for the incensing and the washing of the hands (“Incensum istud” and “Ne accedamus”). The Orate Fratres was (tentatively) replaced by Oremus. The 1965 drafts only have 3 prayers at the offertory - "Sicut hic panis (modified) , “Sapientia aedificavit” and “In spiritu humilitatis”. Like 1964, the omit the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar altogether and discuss a pentiential rite - a possible one suggested in the footnote sis the troping of the Kyrie as in the 1970 Form C. In fact, in the relatio’s of this period, the question from pre-conciliar is carried over: wehther to have a pentiential rite and where to place it. In any event, the ommissions were already made before the Protestant observers came on the scene in 1966.
Another objection that people point to are avant garde Eucharistic liturgies like Taize. Leaving aside the thorny questions aout where exactly Taize’s rite falls in the liturgical spectrum, the interest in Eucharistic Studies had led to common ideas abotu what the Eucharistic Liturgy should look like. Witness for example, Dix’s appropriately titled tome “The Shape of the Liturgy”. It should not surprise one then that there was agreement on placing a Kyrie at the beginning or omitting devotional prayers in order (where correctly or not) to stress other parts of the Mass. These were common liturgical ideas, not borrowings from Protestantism