The Protestantised New Order of the Mass?

[stmaria]

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:

What specific (name removed by moderator)ut the Protestant observers had is unknown. It is all speculation. However it is a fact that they were there for the sake of ecumenism.
Reform of the Liturgy
Pg 199. “At the audience of December 2, 1965, Cardinal Lecaro, president of the Consilium, gave the Pope a statement in which he said that some of the members of the Anglican communion who were involved in the revision of that Church’s liturgy had let it be known by indirect channels that they would be interested in following the work of the Consilium at close hand.The Cardinal noted that a reciprocal knowledge of the researches and schemas of the two Churches would not be a bad thing. It might even serve as a positive help to rapprochement of the two Churches. This was more readily true, he added, for some parts of the liturgy. For example, if a common schema for the Psalter in the Divine Office and for the readings in the liturgy could be worked out, it might be a spiritual and psychological help to union.”

According to Annibale’s Bugnini’s book* Reform of the Liturgy *the Protestants that attended the meetings of the Consilium that wrote the Liturgy were Anglican Canon Jasper, Reverend Massey Shepherd professor at the Church divinity School of the Pacific, Methodist Professor Raymond George, Lutheran Pastor Friedrich Kunneth, Lutheran Reverend Eugene Brand and Calvinist Frere Max Thurian of the Taize community.

Bugnini says this about the Protestants, “Their attitude at the meetings of the Consilium was one of great reserve and unobtrusiveness. They never took part in the discussions, never asked to speak. They were the first to arrive at the meetings, the last to leave the hall. They were always affable, polite, sparing of words, and ready to engage in a friendly way in any conversation that might be requested.”

Liturgical Time Bombs pg 77. Protestant observer Canon Ronald Jasper was interviewed by Michael Davies in 1977 and he explained that the observers received all the documents from the drafters in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They were present at the debates , but the observer were not allowed to join in the debate. In the afternoon they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the drafts and at these meetings they were allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. The informal meetings were a complete free-for-all, and there was a frank exchange of views.

Protestant observers Ronald Jasper also said this:

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972

“They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

 

[stmaria]

Was the following a result of the Lutheran observers?
When Father Bugnini changed the words of Consecration he removed the words, “Mystery of Faith” as did Martin Luther.
He added the words, “which is given up for you” which were also added by Martin Luther.
Martin Luther changed “for you and for many” Bugnini allowed the vernacular translations to be changed from “for many” to “for all”
Coincidence?
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

 

[bpbasilphx]

<>

Cardinal Ottaviana based his “intervention” on an early draft of what became the NOM. He withdrew his objections when the final draft was published.

Trads neglect this little point.

 

[Ad_Deum]

Yes, the new order of mass is parallel to the protestant service of liturgy. To prove that the NOM is protestant check out the book of common prayers rite 2 and the lutheran mass rite 2 and 3.
Pax

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, the new order of mass is parallel to the protestant service of liturgy. To prove that the NOM is protestant check out the book of common prayers rite 2 and the lutheran mass rite 2 and 3.
Pax

Have you read any of the posts addressing this?

 

[BobP123]

<>

Cardinal Ottaviana based his “intervention” on an early draft of what became the NOM. He withdrew his objections when the final draft was published.

Trads neglect this little point.

Ottaviana was supposedly blind when he signed the final draft, or forced to sign it, or whatever.

But more to the point the poster claims the OI was a good place to start. With the right keywords, I’m sure you could google and get over a million good references and arguments.

 

[AJV]

Protestant observers Ronald Jasper also said this:

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972

stmaria, after kleary had broguht up this point in a recent theread, I had asked the Anglican Liturgical Library and they very kindly agreed to host the Communion of Series 3. There was a “prayer in Series 3 Revised” that was also based on Hipppolytus, but that was added after deliberation in the CofE General Synod and the date of the quote you provided leads me to think that he is not referring to that at all. (that is not same either)

So it seems to me, that the sacrificial phrasing he is speaking of is this extract:

Therefore, heavenly Father, we do this in remembrance of him: with this bread and this cup we celebrate his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross; we proclaim his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven; and we look for the fullness of his coming in glory.

Accept this our sacrifice of thanks and praise; and as we eat and drink these holy gifts in the presence of your divine majesty, renew us by your Spirit, inspire us with your love, and united us in the body of your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I would argue that then perhaps what he understands from little difference is different from what you and I might understand? Comparing it with Eucharistic Prayer II

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this Life-giving Bread, this Saving Cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the Body and Blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

particularly since the latter
(a) makes an explicit Eucharistic reference, borrowed form the Canon, about what is offered
(b) explicitly states that what is being received is the “Body and Blood” as opposed to the vague “holy gifts”?

 

[AJV]

Yes, the new order of mass is parallel to the protestant service of liturgy. To prove that the NOM is protestant check out the book of common prayers rite 2 and the lutheran mass rite 2 and 3.
Pax

Ad Deum,
Am I right in supposing this to be the Book of Common Prayer 1979 Rite II?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ottaviana was supposedly blind when he signed the final draft, or forced to sign it, or whatever.

But more to the point the poster claims the OI was a good place to start. With the right keywords, I’m sure you could google and get over a million good references and arguments.

This was already answered, scroll back. We were warned not to go off topic.

 

[AJV]

Ottaviana was supposedly blind when he signed the final draft, or forced to sign it, or whatever.

We’ve been asked by the mod not to discuss this part at least of the Ottaviani Intervention. I’ve pmed for a small clarification, but in the meantime, could we please not discuss it, because I would like this thread to remain open.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Was the following a result of the Lutheran observers?
When Father Bugnini changed the words of Consecration he removed the words, “Mystery of Faith” as did Martin Luther.
He added the words, “which is given up for you” which were also added by Martin Luther.
Martin Luther changed “for you and for many” Bugnini allowed the vernacular translations to be changed from “for many” to “for all”
Coincidence?
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

What specific (name removed by moderator)ut the Protestant observers had is unknown. It is all speculation. However it is a fact that they were there for the sake of ecumenism.

Protestant observers Ronald Jasper also said this:

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972

“They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

 

[AJV]

Was the following a result of the Lutheran observers?
When Father Bugnini changed the words of Consecration he removed the words, “Mystery of Faith” as did Martin Luther.
He added the words, “which is given up for you” which were also added by Martin Luther.

I don’t recall Fr. Bugnini mentioning Luther as one of his reasons As for the added words- it is in a slightly different tense. You can compare the German of the NO and the German of Luther. Or the Latin of both.

I would rather say, based on Fr. Vagagginni, who was one of the drafters, that it was because it was the custom “in all the Eastern liturgies” and also in the “Paleo-Hispanic rite”

Martin Luther changed “for you and for many” Bugnini allowed the vernacular translations to be changed from “for many” to “for all”
Coincidence?
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

The Lutheran liturgies are roughly divided into two groups based on the two forms given by Luther. The first in the Formulae Missa runs

Hic calix est novi testamenti in meo sanguine, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Haec quotiescunque feceritis, in mei memoriam faciatis.

The 1526 Order runs more or less like the Catechism version.

Trinket alle daraus, das ist der Kelch, das Neue Testament in meinem Blut, das fur euch vergossen wird zur Vergebung der Sunde,solches thut, so oft ihrs trinkt, zu meinem Gedachtniss

In Liturgische Abhandlungen, Volume V, the Lutheran Kliefoth speaking of the variations on these words within the Lutheran Church Orders, says

The most two important variations are “Nehmet hin und trinket” and “das fur euch und fur viele (vil) vergossen wird”

And there are a sizeable number which appear to adopt the latter Brandenburg-Nuremberg, Cassel, Frankfurt, Saxony and a whole list. For example Jonas’ Latin version (from Nuremburg and also Wittenburg)

Bibite ex hoc omnes, hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti qui pro vobis et multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite quotiescumque bibitis in mei commemorationem.

Trinckt alle daraus. Das ist mein blut des newen testamentes das fur euch und fur vil vergossen wirdt zur vergebung der sunden
Solchs thut so oft irs trinckt zu meinem gedechtnus.

The Lutherans had variation in the words (and none of the variations included “for all”)

 

[stmaria]

The Lutherans had variation in the words (and none of the variations included “for all”)

Am I correct in saying that Luther did not believe in Transubstantiation and therefore “Mystery of Faith” had to be removed from his consecration formula?

“Mystery of Faith” does in fact refer to Transubstantiation and not to the current usage expressed in the OF that “Christ has died, Christ has risen and Christ will come again.”

 

[bkovacs]

Was the following a result of the Lutheran observers?
When Father Bugnini changed the words of Consecration he removed the words, “Mystery of Faith” as did Martin Luther.
He added the words, “which is given up for you” which were also added by Martin Luther.
Martin Luther changed “for you and for many” Bugnini allowed the vernacular translations to be changed from “for many” to “for all”
Coincidence?
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

Father Bugnini was a Protestant!!.

 

[AJV]

Am I correct in saying that Luther did not believe in Transubstantiation and therefore “Mystery of Faith” had to be removed from his consecration formula?

If you’ll produce a quote of his saying this: I’ll happily concur.

Until then I’ll stick by the Foxe quote to say that “mysterium fidei” can be interpreted in a Protestant favourable way as well.

“Mystery of Faith” does in fact refer to Transubstantiation and not to the current usage expressed in the OF that “Christ has died, Christ has risen and Christ will come again.”

And as I said before, this nasty misappropriation of the Mysterium Fidei to “Christ has died” or the other acclamations is a result of the English mistranslation. If you look at the some of the responses, even the ones approved locally (e.g. the fifth one for Ireland) they make no sense as to being a mystery of faith.

 

[stmaria]

.

And as I said before, this nasty misappropriation of the Mysterium Fidei to “Christ has died” or the other acclamations is a result of the English mistranslation. If you look at the some of the responses, even the ones approved locally (e.g. the fifth one for Ireland) they make no sense as to being a mystery of faith.

Mistranslation?
Pope Paul moved the words, Mystery of Faith" outside of the consecration formula and placed them after the words of consecration. The Novus Ordo missle now reads: “Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.”

 

[AJV]

Whereas the NO Latin reads “Mysterium Fidei.” Full stop, no “:” and no “Let us proclaim”

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I don’t recall Fr. Bugnini mentioning Luther as one of his reasons

This is expected, as most such as yourself, who are in great favor of the No service, would also deny that in any way, shape, or form was Fr Bugnini a freemason. Even though he was inducted to this cult on 23 April 1963 (notice any significance in the numbers? If not then that you have already answered the query) according to the Freemason registry of Italy (Google or Yahoo! it, hits will be many).

From what I have read you are quite an expert on Luther, and not laity as you have suggested in previous posts.

Luther Luther Luther. :hypno:
Are you one that also ignores that Anglican/Lutheran is Protestant?

Makes many of us wonder , since many claim to be traditional externally but yet favor much of what is not traditional.

I love the Gospel:
St Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

You and your brethren JKirkNV, have still failed to list/contrast/compare the Heretical 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer book with the NO service.

Here again, I will attempt, since I am laity unlike yourself, to do a lilltle more groundwork for you.
Can you elaborate on this please?

The last Gospel which closes the True Mass has been removed in the NO service, which was removed in the Heretical 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer (many years before the creation of this NO service).

Some points you can help us with is, Why it was removed just like heretical services? or Why the similarity with the Heretical 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayerbook? etc.

I thought the Last Gospel emphasizes the Incarnation of Yeshua.
Thank you

The more you remove, the more it sounds like Protestant. Something akin to the differences in the Holy Bible and the books used by other denominations (e.g. KJV- King James has a Version ), both in terms of translation and number of books.

When one uses a modality of mathematics as an analogy, subtraction suffices:
The more you take away, the less you have.

Peace.

 

[AJV]

This is expected, as most such as yourself, who are in great favor of the No service, would also deny that in any way, shape, or form was Fr Bugnini a freemason. Even though he was inducted to this cult on 23 April 1963 (notice any significance in the numbers? If not then that you have already answered the query) according to the Freemason registry of Italy (Google or Yahoo! it, hits will be many).

Yes, it is to be expected (though I’m not in “great favour” of the NO. I simply deny that the changes make it compatible with Protestant doctrine) . Since I don’t put great stock by what appears on purported Freemason lists and more so by what appears on the Internet which is susceptible to all manner of disinformation. Freemasons have claimed that Pius IX was a member.

From what I have read you are quite an expert on Luther, and not laity as you have suggested in previous posts.

Not an expert on Luther or laity.

But I tend to be more convinced with quotes from him if people attribute something to him.

Luther Luther Luther. :hypno:
Are you one that also ignores that Anglican/Lutheran is Protestant?

No, else there’d be no point to this thread.

At the same time, though not Catholic, the spectrum of views in Anglicanism makes it difficult to put it squarely into the Protestant camp.

Makes many of us wonder , since many claim to be traditional externally but yet favor much of what is not traditional.

Well, I haven’t claimed to be traditional. And I’m not in favour of the NO. To defend it vs. the Protestantising charge is not necessarily that I approve wholeheartedly, wily-nily of it.

And actually, if Traditional means that one claims that the NO and Protestant services have the same doctrine, then I’m definitely not traditional. You heard it from the horse’s mouth.

I love the Gospel:
St Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Per evangelica dicta deleantur nostra delicta

You and your brethren JKirkNV, have still failed to list/contrast/compare the Heretical 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer book with the NO service.

As I mentioned to you, if you start the list, I can compare and contrast it.

Here again, I will attempt, since I am laity unlike yourself, to do a lilltle more groundwork for you.
Can you elaborate on this please?

The last Gospel which closes the True Mass has been removed in the NO service, which was removed in the Heretical 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer (many years before the creation of this NO service).

Some points you can help us with is, Why it was removed just like heretical services? or Why the similarity with the Heretical 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayerbook? etc.

I thought the Last Gospel emphasizes the Incarnation of Yeshua.
Thank you

In the Sarum Mass and all the other English Uses which the BCP supplanted the Last Gospel is not said at the altar at the end of the Mass.

Secondly, for example, in the 19th century, say time of Pius IX, you would most probably hear the Incarnation Gospel i.e. the Prologue to St. John, at only about half the Masses of Sundays of the year, according to the rubrics.

Why was the Last Gospel removed? If you look at that book I mentioned earlier, by H. A. Reinhold you’ll find that since the Last Gospel at the altar was held to be a private prayer transported from the sacristy to be said at the altar, introduced in 1570, and the incongruity of it being said after the Ite Missa Est. Again look at the Lugano Congress (1953) and you’ll see this change proposed on this basis.

What is there that emphasizes Catholic doctrine in the Last Gospel that a Protestant disagrees with? Absolutely nothing.