The Protestantised New Order of the Mass?

[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

I assumed you were talking about Rite II in the 1979 BCP, so if you weren’t, my apologies.

The first thing puzzles me is how you can Protestantise something if it came 9 years after one promulgated their version? The BCP came in 1979 and the NO came in 1970.

This is the outline of the BCP Rite II

Introduction * - “Blessed be God” or the variants
Collect for Purity
[Confession of Sin ]
Decalogue
Gloria **
Kyrie or Trisagion
Collect
Lessons
Creed
Prayers of the People *
Confession of sin
Peace *
Offertory sentence
Eucharistic Prayer A/B/C/D *
Our Father
Fraction (silence) *
Invitation for Communion **
Words of the distribution **
Postcommunion (fixed)
Blessing
Dismissal *

All the items marked with asterisks were introduced newly i.e. they are not in the previous Prayerbook 1928. The ones with double asterisks have some feature or position changed from the previous prayerbook.
So basically that leaves most of the service as a new creation after the NO.

Now directly looking at the first part from the Introduction to the Peace. If:

• the Decalogue is omitted
• the Confession of Sin is placed in the first rather than the second position
• the Kyrie is used, and not inverted with the Gloria

You end up with approximately the same sequence. However, none of the parts except for the Kyrie and Gloria and Creed (and depending on the Lectionary used) have the approximate wording of the NO. The Confessions are not the same (and additionally the BCP provides optional exhortations etc.), neither is there provision for sprinkling of water or anything like that.

That leaves the second part. I don’t think here it is the same. The NO in opposition to the BCP

• Provides fixed prayers during the Preparation
• Has a variable Super Oblata
• Has an invitation that again expresses the sacrificial nature
• More Prefaces
• Has a lengthy embolism, a prayer for peace, a prayer at the commixture, prayers before communion expressing the Real Presence.
• a different invitation for communion – and one that does not include the possibility of a memorialist view as does the BCP “Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith, with thanksgiving.”

 

[AJV]

Looking down the order of Rite II, it seems to me that what is exactly the same is the Our Father and one of the dismissal formulae. What could be said to be approximately the same is Eucharistic Prayer D

Eucharistic Prayer D has actually good reason to be similar because it was written by a Protestant ecumenical effort and based on Eucharistic Prayer IV in the NO (NOT vice versa). Aside from the fact that the English is better than the ICEL dished out version, and that the Epiclesis follows rather than precedes the Institution, and a different acclamation it seems more or less to be same. But if you look you’ll see this:

BCP

Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. Recalling Christ’s death and his descent among the dead, proclaiming his resurrection and ascension to your right hand, awaiting his coming in glory; and offering to you, from the gifts you have given us, this bread and this cup, we praise you and we bless you.

NO

Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ’s death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and, looking forward to his coming in glory, we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world.

BCP

Remember, Lord, your one holy catholic and apostolic Church, redeemed by the blood of your Christ. Reveal its unity, guard its faith, and preserve it in peace.

NO

Lord, remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice, especially Benedict……

And then the BCP also optionalises the intercessions for the living and the dead, and the mention of the saints (which is slightly different from EP IV and definitely doesn’t call the BVM the Mother of the God)

I would also like to touch on something else that I found interesting when I first heard it. The Episcopalians in the USA aren’t exactly Protestant. Not Catholic either, but not Protestant fully. For example, if you look on page 862 you’ll see the statement (with a politic answer) “Why do we pray for the dead?” If you look on page 470, you’ll see a collect that greatly resembles no. 9 among the orations for the dead in the Traditional Missal. If you go to page 349, the Preface for the Dead, newly inserted, is the same as the preface for the Dead in the Traditional Missal.

It is not only in these things that the PECUSA/TEC has tried to make their prayerbook more liturgical. Though they first looked at the Western liturgies, they also have borrowed extensively form the liturgies of the East. For example, in the burial office “Give rest O Lord to your servants” “Christ has risen form the dead” are all Byzantine. In the Communion, the Trisagion, some of the Litanies, the invitation to communion are all modeled on the East.

This is also seen in other ways. The Collect “For the Eucharist” is the same as the collect in the Traditional missal for the Mass of the Blessed Sacrament. Likewise the Holy Cross, the Holy Angels, etc. In some cases like the collect for the Kingship they have elected to use the collects of the Traditional Missal rather than the NO.

And not only with the Communion or the Dead, but in other areas. Auricular confession is not a doctrine, but if you look at the new form that was provided in 1979 book, if anyone should desire to avail of it, it bears a marked resemblance to the pre-conciliar Catholic Ritual used in 19th century England (version I have has the approval of the Province of Westminister and the approbation of the bishop of Nottingham) An almost word for word translation of the opening rites of the confession, the blessing, the latter of the absolution, all the familiar wording “for these and all other sins which I cannot remember……” with the only difference being that for the BVM and saints in the confession is substituted “the Church” and the sin of omission is added to the list.
What I’m trying to say is that it is not necessarily that even when the two books agree that it is that always that the Catholic Church has compromised on some aspect of doctrine. It may well be that the Protestants have.

 

[MMLJ]

**The NOVUS ORDO Missae and 1549 ANGLICAN PRAYER BOOK - SIMILARITIES (it is undeniable) **

**(1) **Cranmer entitled his 1549 service: “The Supper
of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly
called the Mass”.
The Novus Ordo Missae was entitled “The Lord’s
Supper or Mass” in the original Article 7. The
term “Lord’s Supper” is still included in the
revised Article 7.

**(2)****Cranmer’s Lord’s Supper **celebrated in the
vernacular.
The **Novus Ordo Missae **celebrated in the
**vernacular.
**

**(3)**Cranmer’s service one of public praise and
thanksgiving and therefore said audibly.
Novus Ordo Missae said audibly throughout.

**(4)**Cranmer’s service celebrated on a table facing the
people.
Novus Ordo Missae celebrated on what is clearly
intended to be a table facing the people.

(5) PSALM Judica me Suppressed by Cranmer (Cranmer’s Godly
Order, p. 101).
Suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae.

**(6)**Cranmer abolished the Confiteor (Cranmer’s
Godly Order p. 101).
The **double Confiteor has been suppressed in the
Novus Ordo Missae **thus blurring the distinction
between priest and people. A truncated Confiteor
invoking the angels and saints is included as an
option but other penitential rites containing no
such invocation and thus completely acceptable
to Protestants are provided.

**(7) **Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel,
Creed.
Retained by Cranmer.
Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,

 

[stmaria]

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

I do not have access to a Latin text of the Novus Ordo. I am confused. Correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that the latin text if translated correctly would be,
“Mystery of Faith. Let us Proclaim. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” or any of the other three opitional responses? or is it just “Mystery of faith.” and nothing follows?

Still seems to be the same meaning. It certainly doesn’t refer to the proper meaning of *Mystery of Faith *which is the changing of bread and wine into the actual, physical presence of Christ.

 

[BobP123]

Martin Luther changed “for you and for many” Bugnini allowed the vernacular translations to be changed from “for many” to “for all”

In all fairness, the words “for all” appeared in the English Mass as early as 1967, three years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. One of the saving features of the Novus Ordo (from being completely Protestant, if it is at all) was that it was promulgated in Latin. From the Latin, we know what was intended in the Mass and not what was just “allowed,” as is in some of the vernaculars.

 

[stmaria]

In all fairness, the words “for all” appeared in the English Mass as early as 1967, three years before the Novus Ordo was promulgated

It was said that the translation. “Take and eat, because this is my body’ was grammatically inaccurate and theologically unfortunate…inasmuch as it might cast doubt on the validity of the formula used for the consecration…the translation of pro multis created a similar incident, with wide international participation.” The Italian translation was revised.

One of the saving features of the Novus Ordo (from being completely Protestant, if it is at all) was that it was promulgated in Latin. From the Latin, we know what was intended in the Mass and not what was just “allowed,” as is in some of the vernaculars.

Yes but it is meant to be said in the vernacular. Remember the fisrt time the Novus Ordo was shown to a group of Bishops was in 1967 in the Sistine Chapel. The celebrant was Father Bugnini. The Mass was said in Italian, not in Latin. From this Mass came the Short Critical Study of the Mass by twelve theologians. It later became known as the Ottavaini Intervention.
latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

 

[BobP123]

Yes but it is meant to be said in the vernacular.

If it is true that all Novus Ordo are to be said in the vernacular, then, yes, one could easily classify them as Protestant, as in PROTESTant. A protest against both the Council of Trent and Vatican II.

But in classifying them as Protestant, would that necessarily disqualify them as being a “catholic” rite which would fulfill your Sunday obligation?

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

 

[Pious_Mat]

The first celebration of the New Mass might have been in vernacular, but this is more a sign of how progressive Bugnini was, and not that the mass ought to be said that way. Pope Paul VI certainly didn’t envision a mass entirely in vernacular, and neither did any of the Bishops who attended Vatican II at the time. The all-vernacular and abuses in the NO came about largely because of the passive attitude of Pope Paul, whom John XXIII called “Our Hamlet” for his legendary indecisive behaviour. If the NO was intended to be entirely in the vernacular all the time, only Bugnini thought so originally.

 

[rwoehmke]

Are we concerned only with Lutheran and Anglican Services? My father was a Lutheran and my belief is that some of them copied parts of the NO. Depends on which kind of Lutheran you are talking about. What about similarities to services in the Baptist, Evangelical , Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches? Hardly any comparison in my estimation. I read all four sections of this thread and remain totally unconvinced. Looks to me like someone is sour grapes about the NO and just wants to beat a dead horse once again. NO being a protestant sourced liturgy is baloney.

 

[BobP123]

NO being a protestant sourced liturgy is baloney.

“Baloney” is not an argument.

 

[mlchance]

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

QFT. Perhaps it’s those who dislike the Pope’s authority are the ones “Protestantizing” the Church.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MMLJ]

Again

**The NOVUS ORDO Missae and 1549 ANGLICAN PRAYER BOOK - SIMILARITIES (it is undeniable) **

**(1) **Cranmer entitled his 1549 service: “The Supper
of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly
called the Mass”.
The Novus Ordo Missae was entitled “The Lord’s
Supper or Mass” in the original Article 7. The
term “Lord’s Supper” is still included in the
revised Article 7.

**(2)****Cranmer’s Lord’s Supper **celebrated in the
vernacular.
The **Novus Ordo Missae **celebrated in the
**vernacular.
**

**(3)**Cranmer’s service one of public praise and
thanksgiving and therefore said audibly.
Novus Ordo Missae said audibly throughout.

**(4)**Cranmer’s service celebrated on a table facing the
people.
Novus Ordo Missae celebrated on what is clearly
intended to be a table facing the people.

(5) PSALM Judica me Suppressed by Cranmer (Cranmer’s Godly
Order, p. 101).
Suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae.

**(6)**Cranmer abolished the Confiteor (Cranmer’s
Godly Order p. 101).
The **double Confiteor has been suppressed in the
Novus Ordo Missae **thus blurring the distinction
between priest and people. A truncated Confiteor
invoking the angels and saints is included as an
option but other penitential rites containing no
such invocation and thus completely acceptable
to Protestants are provided.

**(7) **Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel,
Creed.
Retained by Cranmer.
Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,

 

[mlchance]

Again

And by merely listing similarities and ignoring any critical examination, I can also “prove” that invoking the Blessed Virgin as Queen of Heaven is a corruption that comes from ancient Babylon.

The Novus Ordo was promulgated by a Pope. Submit to his authority.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MMLJ]

And by merely listing similarities and ignoring any critical examination, I can also “prove” that invoking the Blessed Virgin as Queen of Heaven is a corruption that comes from ancient Babylon.

The Novus Ordo was promulgated by a Pope. Submit to his authority.

– Mark L. Chance.

Sorry if you were disheartened by the exact similarities, but I was only responding to the Original Post. If you would like I can continue with the list and present that it is so similar that it might as well be the same service.

I never said the Novus Ordo service was not promulgated ‘a’ Pope. Since you are correct it was promulgated by ‘a’ Pope.

You are welcome to contrast them as well with the 1549 HERETICAL CRAMNER ANGLICAN PRAYERBOOK.
In this way we can better benefit from what precisely it is you are saying since you have not disagreed that they are the same service.

(Reminder: CRAMNER was a HERETIC so I would like to view your proofs and critical examinations as to why these changes are viable. One should question why liturgical reformations invented by a heretic are so similar to those of the NO-service )

In any event, with or without your proofs, it is evident that Cramner the heretic’s reforms has similarities and equalities to the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

It seems Cramner already did the groundwork years before Vatican II.

BTW, please start another thread for your proof concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, since I would like this thread to stay on topic. Thank you and God Bless.

 

[mlchance]

I never said the Novus Ordo service was not promulgated ‘a’ Pope. Since you are correct it was promulgated by ‘a’ Pope.

Then submit to his authority as Pope and stop implying that he promulgated heresy instead of a valid liturgy.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MMLJ]

Then submit to his authority as Pope and stop implying that he promulgated heresy instead of a valid liturgy.



– Mark L. Chance.

Modernists love to spin the word valid:hypno: .
something can of course be valid but is it also licit? Since the Anglican service is both valid and licit according to heretics.

Anyway, I will post this again so you can address the Similarities instead of sidetracking the thread:

Sorry if you were disheartened by the exact similarities, but I was only responding to the Original Post. If you would like I can continue with the list and present that it is so similar that it might as well be the same service.

I never said the Novus Ordo service was not promulgated ‘a’ Pope. Since you are correct it was promulgated by ‘a’ Pope.

You are welcome to contrast them as well with the 1549 HERETICAL CRAMNER ANGLICAN PRAYERBOOK.
In this way we can better benefit from what precisely it is you are saying since you have not disagreed that they are the same service.

(Reminder: CRAMNER was a HERETIC so I would like to view your proofs and critical examinations as to why these changes are viable. One should question why liturgical reformations invented by a heretic are so similar to those of the NO-service )

In any event, with or without your proofs, it is evident that Cramner the heretic’s reforms has similarities and equalities to the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

It seems Cramner already did the groundwork years before Vatican II.

BTW, please start another thread for your proof concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, since I would like this thread to stay on topic. Thank you and God Bless.

 

[mlchance]

Modernists love to spin the word valid:hypno: .
something can of course be valid but is it also licit?

I’m not a modernist, but good use of the ad hominem to detract from the weakness of your position. Yes, it is licit. Submit to the Pope’s authority.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MMLJ]

I’m not a modernist, but good use of the ad hominem to detract from the weakness of your position. Yes, it is licit. Submit to the Pope’s authority.

– Mark L. Chance.

I only see that you stray from addressing my previous posts, this is a sign not only of weakness but utter and pure deception. A Modernist Mind Trick :hypno: .

Last chance to redeem yourself:

Please provide you explanations and references.

Sorry if you were disheartened by the exact similarities, but I was only responding to the Original Post. If you would like I can continue with the list and present that it is so similar that it might as well be the same service.

YOU are welcome to contrast them as well with the 1549 HERETICAL CRAMNER ANGLICAN PRAYERBOOK.
In this way we can better benefit from what precisely it is you are saying since you have not disagreed that they are the same service.

(Reminder: CRAMNER was a HERETIC so I would like to view your proofs and critical examinations as to why these changes are viable. One should question why liturgical reformations invented by a heretic are so similar to those of the NO-service )

In any event, with or without your proofs, it is evident that Cramner the heretic’s reforms has similarities and equalities to the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

It seems Cramner already did the groundwork years before Vatican II.

Thank you and God Bless.

 

[AJV]

**The NOVUS ORDO Missae and 1549 ANGLICAN PRAYER BOOK - SIMILARITIES (it is undeniable) **

**(1) **Cranmer entitled his 1549 service: “The Supper
of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly
called the Mass”.
The Novus Ordo Missae was entitled “The Lord’s
Supper or Mass” in the original Article 7. The
term “Lord’s Supper” is still included in the
revised Article 7.

**(2)****Cranmer’s Lord’s Supper **celebrated in the
vernacular.
The **Novus Ordo Missae **celebrated in the
**vernacular.
**

**(3)**Cranmer’s service one of public praise and
thanksgiving and therefore said audibly.
Novus Ordo Missae said audibly throughout.

**(4)**Cranmer’s service celebrated on a table facing the
people.
Novus Ordo Missae celebrated on what is clearly
intended to be a table facing the people.

(5) PSALM Judica me Suppressed by Cranmer (Cranmer’s Godly
Order, p. 101).
Suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae.

**(6)**Cranmer abolished the Confiteor (Cranmer’s
Godly Order p. 101).
The **double Confiteor has been suppressed in the
Novus Ordo Missae **thus blurring the distinction
between priest and people. A truncated Confiteor
invoking the angels and saints is included as an
option but other penitential rites containing no
such invocation and thus completely acceptable
to Protestants are provided.

**(7) **Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gospel,
Creed.
Retained by Cranmer.
Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,

(1) The NO is titled “The Mass” in the same place where the TLM is titled “The Mass” and where Cramner’s is titled “The Lord’s……”
Re: Article 7: ok, fair enough, but why does everyone ignore the preceding article 2 about the Eucharistic Sacrifice of [Christ’] Body and Blood?
(2) The vernacular does not prove any charge of Protestantising since it was always an option- albeit one considered more in our century.
(3) No it isn’t.
(4) Sorry, but there’s absolutely nothing in the ritual books that says that a table must be set up. It seems to me that there is a good amount of supposing and inference in the sentence.
(5) Post #5
(7) As desirable as this comparison may seem, it is not wholly comparable. Cramner’s Introit is full single psalm (and usually he was at pains to avoid the ones used in the Sarum). The NO has the antiphon not the psalm – though the antiphon may come from there occasionally. For Sung Masses using the Graduale the Intriot is the same as in the TLM (with few exceptions)
Moreover, as some are admirably aware, the NO has not retained the Epistle and Gospels of the TLM at all but has a completely new cycle (unlike Cramner’s whose Epistles and Gospels coincide with those in the Roman on quite a few Sundays)
Finally the NO has added an OT Reading and enlarged the Graduale (which still may be used) into a psalm. The Graduale and Alleluia were omitted by Cramner.

 

[mlchance]

I only see that you stray from addressing my previous posts, this is a sign not only of weakness but utter and pure deception. A Modernist Mind Trick :hypno: .

I say I’m not a modernist, and you respond by calling me a liar. Why do you continue with the ad hominem?

Last chance to redeem yourself:

My redemption is bought by the Blood of Christ, not by satisfying you.

The Church has said the Novus Ordo is acceptable. Submit to her authority.

– Mark L. Chance.