The Protestantised New Order of the Mass?

[AJV]

On another thread, ThereCanBeOnly1 said

The NO service is definitely Protestantized.

For example, the similarities with Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Anglican (PROTESTANT) book of prayer is undeniable. For examples, and there are plenty, someone should start another thread.
The Best thing to do, and it is recommended for all NO service participants, is to read the Anglican Prayer Book for yourself.

Since this topic periodically comes up on this forum with references to Lutheran and Anglican liturgies, I thought it might be good to discuss this.

Undoubtedly the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo/Missal of 1970/Missal of Paul VI/ etc. has omissions and changes - I think that’s pretty much evident to anyone who can read.

But, it would be nice if the nature of the changes in the prayers and the reasons behind them could also be examined and discussed. And also if the changes to the NO can be seen in the light of the whole and whether they can fully thus be equated to the Protestant liturgies (yes, I’m doing a certain amount of “leading the witness” here…)

Another topic which I would like to propose, since it is also relevant in some way IMHO, is how far the Protestant churches have changed in the worship ideals from the time of the ‘Reformation’ and whether certain similarities are changes on the part of the NO or the Protestants.

The discussion is not limited to the 1549 BCP mentioned in the quote- please draw in other prayerbooks and orders of divine service and hymnals that are relevant. Though for ease, I think it might be better not to mix them all up in one post? And if the Orders are more recent (i.e. around the time period of the NO-1960’s) I think those might be more effective towards demonstrating the Protestant link.

But, please, if I can be presumptuous enough- if quoting someone else that the NO was Protestantised, it would really be excellent if it could be backed up with a reference to the stated worship resource of said denomination so that the extent and accuracy of the quote can be determined.

And also, if one would like to bring in the mention of the “6 Protestant observers”, please do add in a reference to the changes they proposed/saw through so that these changes can also be evaluated.

Thank you :tiphat:

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I think a good place to start would be the Ottaviani Intervention.

I’ll quote the introduction, which was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci, then provide a link to the actual study.

Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
September 25th, 1969

Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily.

1. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci

The following is a link ot the study itself…

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

On another thread, ThereCanBeOnly1 said

Since this topic periodically comes up on this forum with references to Lutheran and Anglican liturgies, I thought it might be good to discuss this.

Undoubtedly the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo/Missal of 1970/Missal of Paul VI/ etc. has omissions and changes - I think that’s pretty much evident to anyone who can read.

But, it would be nice if the nature of the changes in the prayers and the reasons behind them could also be examined and discussed. And also if the changes to the NO can be seen in the light of the whole and whether they can fully thus be equated to the Protestant liturgies (yes, I’m doing a certain amount of “leading the witness” here…)

Another topic which I would like to propose, since it is also relevant in some way IMHO, is how far the Protestant churches have changed in the worship ideals from the time of the ‘Reformation’ and whether certain similarities are changes on the part of the NO or the Protestants.

The discussion is not limited to the 1549 BCP mentioned in the quote- please draw in other prayerbooks and orders of divine service and hymnals that are relevant. Though for ease, I think it might be better not to mix them all up in one post? And if the Orders are more recent (i.e. around the time period of the NO-1960’s) I think those might be more effective towards demonstrating the Protestant link.

But, please, if I can be presumptuous enough- if quoting someone else that the NO was Protestantised, it would really be excellent if it could be backed up with a reference to the stated worship resource of said denomination so that the extent and accuracy of the quote can be determined.

And also, if one would like to bring in the mention of the “6 Protestant observers”, please do add in a reference to the changes they proposed/saw through so that these changes can also be evaluated.

Thank you :tiphat:

Are the Anglican Prayer books of 1549 and 1552 not references? If they are not, why?
If they are, have you read them cover to cover?
If you have, contrast the similarities and differences between the NO service and the Anglican (PROTESTANT) service.

I agree with you let us not mix everything up like you are attempting to, that is deception. But try and stick to the books I mentioned.

For example I will do some homework for you:

(i) In the Anglican Prayer Book of Cramner 1549 has taken out the Psalm ‘Give Judgment for me, O God’. This is also taken out in the NO service This is an important part of the Mass since it refers to the altar of GOD.

Oh yeah, was not the author of your Anglican Prayerbook, Cramner a heretic?

That is how you can show us, laity, what it is you are really leading on about.
You talk the talk but can you walk the walk? Or do you prefer to crawl?

BTW, you are most welcome.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yet shortly thereafter, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the following:

“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 [by the new rite’s sacrificial character]. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention%between%

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yet shortly thereafter, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the following:

“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 [by the new rite’s sacrificial character]. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention%between%

It should also be pointed out that when Cardinal Ottaviani signed this document he was totally blind, and a few weeks later his secretary, who presented the document to him for his signature was fired. I wonder why?

The study itself was very detailed and made MANY strong points, none of which were addressed in the alledged retraction.

And, for the clincher, lest anyone think that the speaches of November 19th, and 26th, of 1969 cleared up the points raised in the Ottaviani Intervention, here is a link to those speaches… which speak for themselves…

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM
Paul VI:

Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

… This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

… We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed …

1. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most… Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.

… we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms.

… A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church…

… It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment.

Then followed the illicit supression of the Traditional Mass and the severe and immediate punishment for Priests who continued to say it.

 

[AJV]

Are the Anglican Prayer books of 1549 and 1552 not references? If they are not, why?

Yes they are. That’s why I’m asking you if you could please show the changes and what you think is the nature.

If they are, have you read them cover to cover?
If you have, contrast the similarities and differences between the NO service and the Anglican (PROTESTANT) service.

Yes they are. That’s why I started this thread so that the nature of the changes could be discussed.

I felt based on my reading of the Missal and the Prayerbook and the two could not be equated. But I’m willing to listen if you’ll show me why you think they should be.

I agree with you let us not mix everything up like you are attempting to, that is deception.

I do beg your pardon, since any mixing up was inadvertent on my part, I assure you. What am I mixing up?

But try and stick to the books I mentioned.

For example I will do some homework for you:

(i) In the Anglican Prayer Book of Cramner 1549 has taken out the Psalm ‘Give Judgment for me, O God’. This is also taken out in the NO service This is an important part of the Mass since it refers to the altar of GOD.

Unfortunately, this was not said at the foot of the altar in the Sarum liturgy as it is in the post 1570 Roman. Though I do get your point.

Why does the psalm and antiphon appear then in a Swedish Lutheran order, for example? I would say based on that that the psalm can be well understood in a neutral meaning.

And why did the revisers of the 1960’s remove it? Simply put, because it was what they believed to be an “accretion”, a private prayer that would be best relegated to the sacristy than said publicly. This view was advocated in the liturgy conferences of the 1950’s. For example the Lugano conference There is a book on this by H.A. Reinhold - Bringing the Mass to the People.

Oh yeah, was not the author of your Anglican Prayerbook, Cramner a heretic?

I don’t see how exactly it is “my” prayerbook, since I’m not Anglican (and anyway, its not used in the Anglican Communion) but…

Yes, he was. That is the purpose of this thread, is it not? To compare his rite and the NO and conclude whether the NO can be said to exactly resemble it.

That is how you can show us, laity, what it is you are really leading on about.

I’m a layperson too. This is the first time someone’s mistaken me for a priest. I don’t know whether to be shocked or flattered.

You talk the talk but can you walk the walk? Or do you prefer to crawl?

My colloquialisms are really not good. Honest! Talk the talk with respect to what?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Yes they are. That’s why I’m asking you if you could please show the changes and what you think is the nature.

Yes they are. That’s why I started this thread so that the nature of the changes could be discussed.

I felt based on my reading of the Missal and the Prayerbook and the two could not be equated. But I’m willing to listen if you’ll show me why you think they should be.

I do beg your pardon, since any mixing up was inadvertent on my part, I assure you. What am I mixing up?

Unfortunately, this was not said at the foot of the altar in the Sarum liturgy as it is in the post 1570 Roman. Though I do get your point.

Why does the psalm and antiphon appear then in a Swedish Lutheran order, for example? I would say based on that that the psalm can be well understood in a neutral meaning.

And why did the revisers of the 1960’s remove it? Simply put, because it was what they believed to be an “accretion”, a private prayer that would be best relegated to the sacristy than said publicly. This view was advocated in the liturgy conferences of the 1950’s.

I don’t see how exactly it is “my” prayerbook, since I’m not Anglican (and anyway, its not used in the Anglican Communion) but…

Yes, he was. That is the purpose of this thread, is it not? To compare his rite and the NO and conclude whether the NO can be said to exactly resemble it.

I’m a layperson too.

My colloquialisms are really not good. Honest! Talk the talk with respect to what?

Well I will be signing off shortly, but it would be nice of you to answer some of the questions in my previous post #3, and you can show all of us the Similarities and Differences of the NO service to the 1549 and 1552 Anglican Prayer books of the heretic Cramner.

Thanks and GOD bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Are the Anglican Prayer books of 1549 and 1552 not references? If they are not, why?
If they are, have you read them cover to cover?
If you have, contrast the similarities and differences between the NO service and the Anglican (PROTESTANT) service.

I agree with you let us not mix everything up like you are attempting to, that is deception. But try and stick to the books I mentioned.

For example I will do some homework for you:

(i) In the Anglican Prayer Book of Cramner 1549 has taken out the Psalm ‘Give Judgment for me, O God’. This is also taken out in the NO service This is an important part of the Mass since it refers to the altar of GOD.

Oh yeah, was not the author of your Anglican Prayerbook, Cramner a heretic?

That is how you can show us, laity, what it is you are really leading on about.
You talk the talk but can you walk the walk? Or do you prefer to crawl?

BTW, you are most welcome.

AJV is a Roman Catholic and he is a traditionalist, one of very few whom I do not feel compelled to refer to as a “traditionalist,” if you take my meaning.

I HAVE read the Anglican Prayer book from cover to cover and I’ve read the Tridentine Mass in its vernacular translation and I’ve read the NO Mass and lots of other liturgies. I answered you in the other thread, you apparently are bent on not believing the truth: all of them have similarities because they have common roots in the liturgies of Western Europe (the Gallican, the Sarum Usage, etc). They all even have things in common with some eastern liturgies, the Antiochene, I think (AJV will correct me).

Yes, Thomas Cranmer was a formal heretic. He also included the Trinitarian baptismal formula, the Creeds, lots of things that the other liturgies have. All you’ve proven is that he wasn’t terribly original. The 1929 Episcopal Prayer Book gives Communion to the laity with following words:

“THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for
thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”

Sounds vaguely like:

“May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life.”

Wonder why?

 

[AJV]

Well I will be signing off shortly, but it would be nice of you to answer some of the questions in my previous post #3, and you can show all of us the Similarities and Differences of the NO service to the 1549 and 1552 Anglican Prayer books of the heretic Cramner.

Thanks and GOD bless.

Which questions?

The thing is, you see, I can’t start contrasting how the changes are different unless I have some clue as to why you think they are. So if you start with some changes (like the Iudica Me in the previous post) then I can comment on them and agree/disagree with you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It should also be pointed out that when Cardinal Ottaviani signed this document he was totally blind, and a few weeks later his secretary, who presented the document to him for his signature was fired. I wonder why?

The study itself was very detailed and made MANY strong points, none of which were addressed in the alledged retraction.

And, for the clincher, lest anyone think that the speaches of November 19th, and 26th, of 1969 cleared up the points raised in the Ottaviani Intervention, here is a link to those speaches… which speak for themselves…

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Then followed the illicit supression of the Traditional Mass and the severe and immediate punishment for Priests who continued to say it.

Yet more and more conspiracy theories. Note:

“Jean Madiran, a critic of Vatican II,[7] and editor of the French journal Itinéraires, claimed that this letter was fraudulently presented to the elderly and already blind cardinal for his signature by his secretary, Monsignor (and future Cardinal) Gilberto Agustoni, and that Agustoni resigned shortly afterwards.[8] Monsignor Agustoni resigned as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary in 1970 to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota [9], and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment. Furthermore, Jean Madiran admits that he was not in the room to see this alleged deception of Cardinal Ottaviani.”

Same source as above. Also, the Cardinal lived for ten years AFTER this alleged deception, yet never set the story straight?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

AJV is a Roman Catholic and he is a traditionalist, one of very few whom I do not feel compelled to refer to as a “traditionalist,” if you take my meaning.

That is nice. But can you or she/he address post #3 please?

I HAVE read the Anglican Prayer book from cover to cover and I’ve read the Tridentine Mass in its vernacular translation and I’ve read the NO Mass and lots of other liturgies. I answered you in the other thread, you apparently are bent on not believing the truth: all of them have similarities because they have common roots in the liturgies of Western Europe (the Gallican, the Sarum Usage, etc). They all even have things in common with some eastern liturgies, the Antiochene, I think (AJV will correct me).

That is wonderful! So maybe you can do what AJV has failed to do, oh so eloquently. See post #3.

Yes, Thomas Cranmer was a formal heretic.

nuff said.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

nuff said.

Apparently not, as you don’t acknowledge the truth that all of these liturgies have common roots and that’s the reason that they ring similar.

 

[AJV]

That is nice. But can you or she/he address post #3 please?

He, thank you.

What would you like me to address in post 3?

If it was the blanket question, it really would be easier if you could lay out a few of the things you feel are Protestantising and the reasons for it. Then I can either agree or disagree with what you’re saying.

nuff said.

No. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are operating from the supposition (of which in the other thread, I took it that you were willing to provide examples of, so I opened this one) that his liturgy is the same as the NO.

I disagree. My verbose introduction might have hidden it but this thread is not about proving or discussing that Cramner’s liturgy is orthodox but that the NO is. And that it is not fully equivalent ot Cranmer’s liturgy.

 

[BobP123]

Maybe Protest-ant by the fact that it was another major “protest” against the Catholic Church? And it was very easy to sell to gullible people who actually thought Vatican II called for a New Mass and one which required much less effort to say.

Of course, Vatican II said no such thing.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe Protest-ant by the fact that it was another major “protest” against the Catholic Church? And it was very easy to sell to gullible people who actually thought Vatican II called for a New Mass and one which required much less effort to say.

Of course, Vatican II said no such thing.

It wasn’t produced by anyone protesting against the Catholic Church. It was promulgated by the legitimate authority of the Pope.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Please keep this thread on the topic of whether there are Protestant influences on the ordinary form of the Roman rite. Conspiracy theories, such as whether or not Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document attributed to him, are outside the topic and should not be discussed in this thread. Thanks!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please keep this thread on the topic of whether there are Protestant influences on the ordinary form of the Roman rite. Conspiracy theories, such as whether or not Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document attributed to him, are outside the topic and should not be discussed in this thread. Thanks!

Certainly, Jo, didn’t mean to get off-track, I just think it’s important that misinformation be answered with truth.

 

[stmaria]

Yet shortly thereafter, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the following:

"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 [by the new rite’s sacrificial character]. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention%between%

Read what I underlined. Cardinal Ottaviani still had major problems with the New Mass. What you put in bold refers to the objections that the theologians raised after they saw the New Mass for the first time in the Sistine Chapel where Father Bugnini celebrated the experimental New Mass for a group of bishops.

These objections were corrected by a revision. This should explain the events.
*Reform of the Liturgy *by Annibale Bugnini
Pg 348-349 “on Monday October 24 1967] the normative Mass was experimentally celebrated in the Sistine Chapel…the secretary of the Consilium Annibale Bugnini] celebrated in Italian…it must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the negative vote that followed…the majority of Fathers entered the Sistine Chapel with their minds made up and ill-disposed to the new Mass…the setting, however, was completely unsuitable. In the first place , the Sistine Chapel lends itself to elitist, not popular, celebrations.”

Pg 384. “ On May 2, [1969} the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum was presented in the press room…on that same occasion the booklet containing the Order of the Mass was made public…in this document Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal…gave anticipatory approval.”
Footnote 53 Pg 386. “because of the attacks by conservative groups after the publication of the Order of the Mass…” The publication was delayed.

The Critical Study was presented to Pope Paul in Sept of 1969.
Pope Paul’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum had been set to be released on November 30, 1969. Because of the Critical Study of the Mass the publication was delayed until the objections could be addressed. Almost five months later the Missal appeared with a new 8-page Foreword to the General Instruction and a revised General Instruction. The revisions that were made were only in the General Instruction but the prayers and rubics that the twelve theologians sited in their study did not change.**

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Last warning:

Please get the conversation back on topic or the thread will have to be closed. Thanks!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Read what I underlined. Cardinal Ottaviani still had major problems with the New Mass. What you put in bold refers to the objections that the theologians raised after they saw the New Mass for the first time in the Sistine Chapel where Father Bugnini celebrated the experimental New Mass for a group of bishops.

These objections were corrected by a revision. This should explain the events.
*Reform of the Liturgy *by Annibale Bugnini
Pg 348-349 “on Monday October 24 1967] the normative Mass was experimentally celebrated in the Sistine Chapel…the secretary of the Consilium Annibale Bugnini] celebrated in Italian…it must be said flatly that the experiment was not a success and even that it had an effect contrary to the one intended and played a part in the negative vote that followed…the majority of Fathers entered the Sistine Chapel with their minds made up and ill-disposed to the new Mass…the setting, however, was completely unsuitable. In the first place , the Sistine Chapel lends itself to elitist, not popular, celebrations.”

Pg 384. “ On May 2, [1969} the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum was presented in the press room…on that same occasion the booklet containing the Order of the Mass was made public…in this document Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal…gave anticipatory approval.”
Footnote 53 Pg 386. “because of the attacks by conservative groups after the publication of the Order of the Mass…”** The publication was delayed.

The Critical Study was presented to Pope Paul in Sept of 1969.
Pope Paul’s Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum had been set to be released on November 30, 1969. Because of the Critical Study of the Mass the publication was delayed until the objections could be addressed. Almost five months later the Missal appeared with a new 8-page Foreword to the General Instruction and a revised General Instruction. The revisions that were made were only in the General Instruction but the prayers and rubics that the twelve theologians sited in their study did not change.

Sorry, St. Maria, we’ve been cautioned by Jo not to sidetrack. See her post.