The Protestantised New Order of the Mass?

[AJV]

I found a similar list online so I hope you won’t mind if I continue. I was just typing out the extra parts. Since it’s unlikely I’m going to finish the list today, I’ll continue it in a future post, but here it is for rnow. I’ve left out the treatment of the Offertory (the biggie) for another post.

(8) Secret Prayers (Proper of the Mass). These prayers often contain specifically sacrificial terminology. They were abolished by Cranmer but have been retained in the Novus Ordo Missae though frequently emasculated in the ICEL translations. As these prayers do not form part of the Ordinary they do not provide an obstacle to achieving an ecumenical Ordinary.

I am happy that it is now at least admitted that some things in the Mass provide an obstacle toward claiming the NO is Protestant.

(9) Sursum corda dialogue Preface, Sanctus. Retained by Cranmer.Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.

It is not analogous. Not only to Cranmer reduce the number of Prefaces, but there are no Prefaces at all for saints’ feasts or for the dead. Whereas the NO provides one for all the solemnities which include saintd and mysteries in the life of the BVM.

(10) Roman Canon. Abolished by Cranmer.Retained as an option in the Novus Ordo Missae, which also contains a Canon (Eucharistic Prayer II) which some Protestants consider acceptable. It makes no distinction between priest and people and does not include the word “Hostia” (victim).

Where does the Roman Canon make a distinction between priest and people? As Pius XII pointed out in Mediator Dei when speaking of the role of the faithful “the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number”

Even stranger is that most mainstream Protestant denominations (even the Reformed) have quite a few derivatives of Hippolytus, and yet, for the supposed compatibility, none have adopted the EP II.

Eucharistic Prayer II contains the reference “offer to you Father this Life givig Bread (lit. Bread of Life] and Saving Cup [lit. Chalice of Salvation] These are Eucharistic references and lest their be any doubt as to their meaning, the GIRM tells you what is intended here . “The Church……offers in the Holy Spirit the spotless Victim to the Father” I think you would be hard pressed to find this sentence in a book espousing a Protestant theology, but if you know of one, I’d be interested to hear of it.

(11) The prayer Libera nos after the Pater noster. Luther and Cranmer abolished this prayer, owing to the invocation of saints at its conclusion.A modified version has been retained in the Novus Ordo Missae with no invocation of saints.

Actually, according to Dom Gasquet, on whose work some parts of Davies’ book are heavily based, “ the one result is that the “fraction” of the host which took place during this prayer is left out of the Prayer Book.”

(12) Haec commixtio. A version of this prayer in the Sarum Missal was abolished by Cranmer.

A modified version of the prayer has been retained in the Novus Ordo Missae but with the significant omission of the word “consecratio.”

How is the omission “significant”? In fact as Gihr writes in “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”

The question, what is here the sense and signification of the word consecratio, presents great difficulties, as is already evident from the many readings of said passage in the liturgical documents and from the numerous attempts at explanation by liturgical writers.

Since the Elements are already consecrated.

 

[AJV]

(13) Domine Jesu Christe, qui dixisti. This prayer did not occur in the Sarum rite but contains nothing to which a Protestant could object beyond the words “ne respicias peccata mea” in which the priest asks forgiveness for his personal sins. This is another prayer distinguishing between the priest and layman, and in the Novus Ordo Missae “peccata mea” has been changed to “peccata nostra” - “our sins.”

This is splitting hairs for nothing.

(14) Domine Jesu Christi, Fili Dei and Perceptio Corporis tui. Modified versions of these prayers are included in the Novus Ordo Missae, one of which the priest says in his personal capacity before Communion. It is a matter for some satisfaction that such a prayer is included. Too much significance should not be attached to use of realistic language regarding the Real Presence in these prayers. It was primarily sacrificial language which the Reformers wished to eliminate. They were able to reconcile the use of language apparently expressing belief in the Real Presence with their own theories e.g. Cranmer’s prayer cited in Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 108.

This is not at all correct. These prayers are completely different form Cranmer’s prayer. Cranmer’s prayer and these are NOT analogous. Cranmer’s was

Hear us O merciful father we beseech thee; and with thy holy Spirit and Word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine, that they** may be unto us** the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.

The ambiguity lies in the “may be to us” rather than “may become” or as one of the more Catholic bishops Day, had insisted “may be made” . The difference between the two is that “may be” is almost equivalent to “represent”; “may become” or “may be made” signify conversion. Cranmer himself explained this difference by saying “And therefore, in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so; that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood”

Domine Jesu Christi, Fili Dei and Perceptio Corporis tui are not open to same interpretation as the previous prayer. Moreover, like the earlier point, they distinguish the priest from the people.

---

I believe that in part, more of the NO can be attributed to an excessive desire for purity and a puritanical sense on later elements in the later- combined with “pastoralism”- rather than reduced to a copying of the Protestant liturgies.

 

[japhy]

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?

The bolded one is how it appears in Latin.

You can see the Ordinary Form in Latin here. I’ll take a look at a Sacramentary soon to see if “Mysterium fidei” is before or after the demarcation of the “Memorial Acclamation”. Regardless, it is mistranslated as “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”.

 

[AJV]

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.

Deinde dicit:
Mysterium Fidei.
Et populus prosequitur, acclamans:
(Memorial Acclamation)

In Latin, there is no "Christ has died…"That is a new invocation introduced in the English.

And in this position (and puncuation), the Latin does indeed refer to the change. It was not put within the words of Consecration but immediately after.

The people’s acclamation (Et populus prosequitur, acclamans) is in response to the priest’s confession.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

(continued from MMLJ post # 52 I hope you do not mind)
I also found similar info on the web. Some others of significance are below.
The list is long so I will continue in another post

**The NOVUS ORDO Missae and 1549 ANGLICAN PRAYER BOOK - SIMILARITIES **

(8)Orate fratres.

Suppressed by Cranmer and suppressed by the
Consilium in the draft for the Missae Normativa.
Restored as a result of pressure at the 1967
Synod in Rome (see p. 324).

**(9)Secret Prayers (Proper of the Mass).
**
These prayers often contain specifically
sacrificial terminology. They were abolished by
Cranmer but have been retained in the Novus
Ordo Missae though frequently emasculated in
the ICEL translations. As these prayers do not
form part of the Ordinary they do not provide an
obstacle to achieving an ecumenical Ordinary.

(10)Sursum corda dialogue Preface, Sanctus.

*Retained by Cranmer.
Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.
*
**(11)Roman Canon. **

Abolished by Cranmer.
Retained as an option in the Novus Ordo Missae,
which also contains a Canon (Eucharistic Prayer
II) which some Protestants consider acceptable.
It makes no distinction between priest and people
and does not include the word “Hostia” (victim).

**(12)The Consecration Formula. **

This was considerably modified by Cranmer and
the Novus Ordo Missae has incorporated his
most important modifications. This was
demonstrated in Chapter XV which examines
Canon II in detail.

(13) The prayer Libera nos after the Pater noster.

Luther and Cranmer abolished this prayer, owing
to the invocation of saints at its conclusion.
A modified version has been retained in the
Novus Ordo Missae with no invocation of saints.

**(14) Haec commixtio. **

A version of this prayer in the Sarum Missal was
abolished by Cranmer.
A modified version of the prayer has been
retained in the Novus Ordo Missae but with the
significant omission of the word "consecratio."

(Remember: As per the original Post, this is just showing how similar the Heretical Cramner 1549 Anglican/Protestant Prayerbook is so similar to the NO service it might as well be the same service. Some will try and explain these similarities and that is fine, but there is no denying that the HERETIC CRAMNER has greatly influenced the NO service. This is no Coincidence, even the blind can visualize this).

 

[BobP123]

The Novus Ordo was promulgated by a Pope.

In Latin.

The PROTEST was against the Council’s guidelines of retaining Latin in the liturgy.

 

[AJV]

(continued from MMLJ post # 52 I hope you do not mind)
I also found similar info on the web. Some others of significance are below.
The list is long so I will continue in another post

**The NOVUS ORDO Missae and 1549 ANGLICAN PRAYER BOOK - SIMILARITIES **

(8)Orate fratres.

Suppressed by Cranmer and suppressed by the
Consilium in the draft for the Missae Normativa.
Restored as a result of pressure at the 1967
Synod in Rome (see p. 324).

**(9)Secret Prayers (Proper of the Mass).
**
These prayers often contain specifically
sacrificial terminology. They were abolished by
Cranmer but have been retained in the Novus
Ordo Missae though frequently emasculated in
the ICEL translations. As these prayers do not
form part of the Ordinary they do not provide an
obstacle to achieving an ecumenical Ordinary.

(10)Sursum corda dialogue Preface, Sanctus.

*Retained by Cranmer.
Retained in Novus Ordo Missae.
*
**(11)Roman Canon. **

Abolished by Cranmer.
Retained as an option in the Novus Ordo Missae,
which also contains a Canon (Eucharistic Prayer
II) which some Protestants consider acceptable.
It makes no distinction between priest and people
and does not include the word “Hostia” (victim).

**(12)The Consecration Formula. **

This was considerably modified by Cranmer and
the Novus Ordo Missae has incorporated his
most important modifications. This was
demonstrated in Chapter XV which examines
Canon II in detail.

(13) The prayer Libera nos after the Pater noster.

Luther and Cranmer abolished this prayer, owing
to the invocation of saints at its conclusion.
A modified version has been retained in the
Novus Ordo Missae with no invocation of saints.

**(14) Haec commixtio. **

A version of this prayer in the Sarum Missal was
abolished by Cranmer.
A modified version of the prayer has been
retained in the Novus Ordo Missae but with the
significant omission of the word "consecratio."

I answered these in the # 61.
Since you underlined and bolded two points I would like to ask:

1. What is the significance of the omission of consecratio?

If Cramner had influenced this, would it not have been omitted altogether? The commixtion and fraction were anathema to Protestants and one of the great reasons why until recently, they were placed at the words “He broke it”.

1. If EP II is compatible with Protestant doctrine, which Protestant denomination includes EP II in its prayerbook or order of service, without any modifications?

(Remember: As per the original Post, this is just showing how similar the Heretical Cramner 1549 Anglican/Protestant Prayerbook is so similar to the NO service it might as well be the same service. Some will try and explain these similarities and that is fine, but there is no denying that the HERETIC CRAMNER has greatly influenced the NO service. This is no Coincidence, even the blind can visualize this).

If it is the “same service” then:
How come the minor Propers such as the Secret (which you yourself pointed out in your list, frequently contains sacrificial language) and the variable Postcommunion has been retained?

How is it that the NO does not perform the Cranmerian skip around the Elements “becoming” the Body and Blood of Christ?

Why does it not hesitate to offer them as such and to clearly state that that is what the people are receiving?

Why does the NO contain so many ritual elements not found in the Cranmerian order - the Elevation (explicitly forbidden by Cranmer) , the Fraction and Commixtion, the fixed Prayers containing the doctrine of the Real Presence?

Why does the NO contain other elements- like prefaces glorifying the saints and the mysteries in the life of the BVM, provide elements distasteful to Cranmer like Votive Masses (19 at last count)?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I answered these in the # 61.
Since you underlined and bolded two points I would like to ask:

1. What is the significance of the omission of consecratio?

If Cramner had influenced this, would it not have been omitted altogether? The commixtion and fraction were anathema to Protestants and one of the great reasons why until recently, they were placed at the words “He broke it”.

1. If EP II is compatible with Protestant doctrine, which Protestant denomination includes EP II in its prayerbook or order of service, without any modifications?

If it is the “same service” then:
How come the minor Propers such as the Secret (which you yourself pointed out in your list, frequently contains sacrificial language) and the variable Postcommunion has been retained?

How is it that the NO does not perform the Cranmerian skip around the Elements “becoming” the Body and Blood of Christ?

Why does it not hesitate to offer them as such and to clearly state that that is what the people are receiving?

Why does the NO contain so many ritual elements not found in the Cranmerian order - the Elevation (explicitly forbidden by Cranmer) , the Fraction and Commixtion, the fixed Prayers containing the doctrine of the Real Presence?

Why does the NO contain other elements- like prefaces glorifying the saints and the mysteries in the life of the BVM, provide elements distasteful to Cranmer like Votive Masses (19 at last count)?

This was a Thread of you design, was it not? It is your cookie.

GET THIS: Your heretical 1549 Anglican Prayerbook by Cramner is in many ways similar to the NO-service and and at the same character points different that the Latin Mass /CATHOLIC mass. Right?

A better question is: Why are the liturgical reforms in the NO-service exact to the HERETICAL 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer book?

You can explain away and ask questions but you need to look at the similarities (which you seem to not want to talk about too much). You must realize that the NO-service is Portestantized or at least conclude that it is almost the same as the heretical service and less like the Catholic Mass.

I think you have said you are not a tradtionalist nor favor the No-service. And you have incorrectly stated that the Anglican service is not Protestant.
Where exactly do you derive this from?

Please without reference to Anglican doctrine but with reference to Catholic doctrine, show us how Anglican service is not Protestant. Since anyone can tell it is most definitely is not Catholic.

 

[AJV]

This was a Thread of you design, was it not? It is your cookie.

Yes. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?

GET THIS: Your heretical 1549 Anglican Prayerbook by Cramner is in many ways similar to the NO-service and and at the same character points different that the Latin Mass /CATHOLIC mass. Right?

Please could you stop referring to it as “my” 1549 BCP? It isn’t you know.

The 1549 is the subject of this thread because of your comment in the other thread in which you said that “For examples, and there are plenty, someone should start another thread.” And for which, I happen to disagree with you.

A better question is: Why are the liturgical reforms in the NO-service exact to the HERETICAL 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer book?

A better question is: why is it made out to be exactly the same as the 1549 Prayer book when it is NOT and the motivation is completely different?

You can explain away and ask questions but you need to look at the similarities (which you seem to not want to talk about too much). You must realize that the NO-service is Portestantized or at least conclude that it is almost the same as the heretical service and less like the Catholic Mass.

Nope. I disagree STILL that it is almost the same. The doctirne of the two is in absolutely no way on par. And no one has shown that it is.

I think you have said you are not a tradtionalist nor favor the No-service. And you have incorrectly stated that the Anglican service is not Protestant.
Where exactly do you derive this from?

Please without reference to Anglican doctrine but with reference to Catholic doctrine, show us how Anglican service is not Protestant. Since anyone can tell it is most definitely is not Catholic.

Which Prayerbook are you referring to?

In fact, there is such a plurality of views across Anglican-ism that one can even even find the Angelus in a BCP. Or even OFFICIAL services like this . I hope reading it, you’ll understand why I am hesitant to lump Anglicans into one big happy Protestant family. If for example, you told me that the Diocese of Sydney was heretical, I’d happily agree. If you told me the Anglican heirarch in Korea at the time of the above service I’d disagree.

I said:

The Episcopalians in the USA aren’t exactly Protestant. Not Catholic either, but not Protestant** fully**.

I repeat NOT Protestant and NOT Catholic. Ina category of its own . Protholic? Cathestant? You choose.

Do look at this collect:

O God, whose mercies cannot be numbered: Accept our
prayers on behalf of thy servant N., and grant him an
entrance into the land of light and peace, in the fellowship of
thy saints; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth
and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, on God, now
and for ever. Amen.

Where have you heard something similar to this little statement " grant him an entrance into the land of light and peace in the fellowship of thy saints"? In the Collects for the Departed in the Traditional Mass for (1) A Man Departed (2) A Cardinal Deacon (3) A Year’s Mind. Am I not justified based on this in concluding that the prayer for the dead is a doctrine of that sect? Why should I not be convinced that it is a doctrine given that it is explicitly laid out in their Catechism?

Or that they have happily added versicles like Requiem Aeternam (also form the burial Office of the Traditional Missal) or Preface for the Dead (word for word, mind you) from the Traditional Missal into their book? And then, why am I not justified in claiming that, though their belief perhaps does not embrace Purgatory (ergo “not Catholic”) or similar concepts, it puts them in beyond the pale of Protestants, since to the best of my knowledge, praying for the dead is not ranked in the Protestant Credo as I commonly know it? Or is it?

 

[AJV]

And actually the same applies to the 1549 Prayerbook. Explicitly it removes intercession to the saints in Collects and Masses, and forbids Votive Masses in their honour and such like. But when we come to the prayers for the dead, it is mixed half truth, and half not.

Lorde, have mercie upon us.
Christe, have mercie upon us.
Lorde, have mercie upon us.
Our father whiche art in heaven, &c.
And leade us not into temptacion.
Aunswere. But deliver us from evil. Amen.
Priest. Entre not (o lorde) into judgement with thy servaunt.
Aunswere. For in thy sight no living creature shalbe justifyed.
Priest. From the gates of hell.
Aunswere. Deliver theyr soules, o lorde.
Priest. I beleve to see the goodnes of the lorde.
Aunswere. In the lande of the living.
Prieste. O lorde, graciously heare my prayer.
Aunswere. And let my crye come unto thee.

Let us pray.

O LORDE, with whome dooe lyve the spirites of them that be dead: and in whome the soules of them that bee elected, after they be delivered from the burden of the fleshe, be in joy and felicitie: **Graunte unto us thy servaunte, that the sinnes whiche he committed in this world be not imputed unto him, but that he, escaping the gates of hell and paynes of eternall derkenesse: **may ever dwel in the region of highte, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place where is no wepyng, sorowe, nor heavinesse:…

These statements are still found in the Exequial Offices prescribed according to the Traditional Missal and Ritual. Are they not prayers of the dead? If not, please, explain to me why not, and then what meaning they have in the Burial Offices of the True Mass?

Even Stephen Gardiner adduced prrofs for this and that doctrine some very clearly, from the 1549 Book. Some of which, Cramner having no answer, were expunged from the BCP. Including the above quoted passages (also form Bucer’s Censura of the anti-Protestant beliefs in the BCP) of the Burial.

Reverting, let me give one more example from the 1979 BCP, which again, I mentioned earlier. Confession.

From the Ordo Ministrandi Sacramentum Poenitentiae approbatum Illms. et Rms. Richardus, Epis. Nottinghamensis

(1) Antequam poenitens peccata sua confiteatur, petat a Sacerdote benedictionem

(2) Dominus sit in corde tuo, et in labiis tuis, ut vere et humiliter confitearis peccata tua, in nomine Patris +, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

(3) Turn poenitens Confessionem generalem latina, vel vulgar! linguadicat; scilicet Confiteor etc.
…
(4) Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat: et ego auctoritate ipsìus te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, (suspensionis), et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

And this is the version of the BCP (newly introduced 1979)

(1) Bless me, for I have sinned.

(2) The Priest says:The Lord be in your heart and upon your lips that you may truly and humbly confess your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

(3) I confess to Almighty God, to his Church, and to you, that
I have sinned by my own fault in thought, word, and deed, in things done and left undone; especially __________.

For these and all other sins which I cannot now remember, I am truly sorry. I pray God to have mercy on me. I firmly intend amendment of life, and I humbly beg forgiveness of God and his Church, and ask you for counsel, direction, and absolution.

(4) Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to
absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

I think you can see the similarities. NOT Catholic- tweaks the prayers slightly, omits some, confession not mandatory, etc., etc. But not wholly Protestant - which Protestant gives such blessings for a good confession and “I absolve you”, etc. ?

And while insisting that I answer your questions, would you please answer mine? For starters, what is the significance of the omission of “consecratio”?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And for which, I happen to disagree with you.

Of courser this your right. That does not make you correct nor the similarities absent. The fact is the Similarities are present, and there is nothing you can do to change that, unless of course you have some type of papal power that you have not disclosed.

A better question is: why is it made out to be exactly the same as the 1549 Prayer book when it is NOT and the motivation is completely different?

Reference for your motivation theory.

And NO a better question is:Why are the liturgical reforms in the NO-service exact to the HERETICAL 1549 Cramner Anglican Prayer book?

Nope. I disagree STILL that it is almost the same. The doctirne of the two is in absolutely no way on par. And no one has shown that it is.

Again you are entitled to disagree. More similarities to follow.

I repeat NOT Protestant and NOT Catholic. Ina category of its own . Protholic? Cathestant? You choose.

Reference please.

And then, why am I not justified in claiming that, though their belief perhaps does not embrace Purgatory (ergo “not Catholic”) or similar concepts, it puts them in beyond the pale of Protestants, since to the best of my knowledge, praying for the dead is not ranked in the Protestant Credo as I commonly know it? Or is it?

Anglican = Protestant:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

**CONNECTION WITH THE PARENT MOVEMENT OF REFORMATION
**
There can be no doubt that the English Reformation is substantially a part of the great Protestant Reformation upheaval of the sixteenth century, and that its doctrine, liturgy, and chief promoters were to a ***very considerable extent derived from, and influenced by, the Lutheran and Calvinistic movements on the Continent. ***

Second Bond: Doctrinal

The great principles and tenets set forth in the works of Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, or Zwingli, are reproduced with or without modifications, but substantially, and often almost verbatim in the literature of the English Reformation. The chief doctrines which are essentially and specifically characteristic of the Protestant Reformation as a whole are the following nine:

*  rejection of the Papacy,
* denial of the Church Infallibility;
* Justification by Faith only;
* supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture as Rule of Faith;
* the triple Eucharistic tenet [viz. (a) that the Eucharist is a Communion or Sacrament, and not a Mass or Sacrifice, save in the sense of praise or commemoration; (b) the denial of Transubstantiation and worship of the Host; (c) the denial of the sacrificial office of the priesthood and the propitiatory character of the Mass];
* the non-necessity of auricular Confession;
* the rejection of the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints;
* the rejection of Purgatory and omission of prayers for the dead;
* the rejection of the doctrine of Indulgences.

To these may be added three disciplinary characteristics which are founded on doctrine:

* the giving of Communion in both kinds;
* the substitution of tables for altars; and
* the abolition of monastic vows and the celibacy of the clergy.

These twelve doctrines and practices of the continental Reformation have undoubtedly, though not always in the same measure, entered into the fibre of the English Reformation, and have all found expression, more or less emphatic,** in the Anglican formularies. Hence, while the name “Protestant” is not found in the Prayer Book, it is used in the Coronation Service when the King promises to maintain “the Protestant religion as by law established”. **It was from the beginning popularly applied to the Anglican beliefs and services. In the Act of Union the Churches of England and Ireland are styled “the Protestant Episcopal Church”, a name still retained by the Anglican Church in America.

Please see the link and put your confusion to rest.
newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907)

 

[LilyM]

Therecanbeonly1:

The best question of all would be why, if the NO is indistinguishable from Cranmer’s service, have I only had personal experience of three occasions when non-Catholics of my acquaintance have attended Mass? All being at special occasions only - Christmas and Ash Wednesday.

And numerous refusals when inviting them to come to Mass on other occasions? Surely if they’re similar these Protestant friends of mine would have no hesitation coming along.

And why is it that NONE of those times the non-Catholics went up for Communion, and they didn’t need to be asked or told not to, either?

They instinctively knew and know the difference between their services and our NO Mass. So do I, having attended once a very ‘High Church’ Anglican service, very similar in wording and gesture to our Mass. But NOT our Mass - no more our Mass than a store mannequin is a real live person.

If they and I knew and know the difference - and by instinct no less - how is it that you can’t see or feel it?

 

[mlchance]

Of courser this your right. That does not make you correct nor the similarities absent. The fact is the Similarities are present, and there is nothing you can do to change that, unless of course you have some type of papal power that you have not disclosed.

IOW, all you have is one giant post hoc fallacy.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AJV]

Reference please.

Anglican = Protestant:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

**CONNECTION WITH THE PARENT MOVEMENT OF REFORMATION
**
There can be no doubt that the English Reformation is substantially a part of the great Protestant Reformation upheaval of the sixteenth century, and that its doctrine, liturgy, and(snip)

…s in the same measure, entered into the fibre of the English Reformation, and have all found expression, more or less emphatic,** in the Anglican formularies. Hence, while the name “Protestant” is not found in the Prayer Book, it is used in the Coronation Service when the King promises to maintain “the Protestant religion as by law established”. **It was from the beginning popularly applied to the Anglican beliefs and services. In the Act of Union the Churches of England and Ireland are styled “the Protestant Episcopal Church”, a name still retained by the Anglican Church in America.

Please see the link and put your confusion to rest.
newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907)

Forgive me for being impudent, but I don’t labour under any doubts in the matter. The Catholic Encyclopedia would be necessarily contradicting itself if it applied each and very statement to the 1549 Prayerbook. It is clearly speaking in a general form. For example:

• the rejection of Purgatory and omission of prayers for the dead;

would otherwise be contradicted when it admits

The First Book, indeed, contains distinct prayers for the soul of the departed, but these were removed in 1552, and have never been restored.

newadvent.org/cathen/02678c.htm

Moreover, it cannot be said to take into account the changes that were introduced into the American branch of 1979. And since you evidently didn’t read the link I provided, I’ll sum it up for you. Among other things, the Anglican Church in Korea officially approved a form of worship containing the Offertory Prayers of the Traditional Mass. Among other things. If you would like to explain therefore, how Anglicanism can be classified as whole among the Protestants go ahead. Some of it’s modern doctrines would make Cranmer role in his grave.

And incidently. there was no coronation oath at the time of the 1549 BCP that the King swore to uphold the** Protestant Reformed Religion. ** That is much later, and I have not contested that the later BCP’s of the CofE are Protestant. I have only remarked on the 1549 BCP of the CofE- which you have not addressed in any case.

You are quoting form sources that speak of the establishment of Protestantism (Britain and Ireland, etc.) in later centuries which I have not contested. I FULLY agree that that Church of England and Ireland was Protestant throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th etc. centuries. Likewise for the doctrine of the Prayerbook that existed then

Oh yes and I forgot-

In the Act of Union the Churches of England and Ireland are styled “the Protestant Episcopal Church”, a name still retained by the Anglican Church in America.

Funny you should bring this up, because a few years the Catholic Encyclopedia Article was written, the influence of the ‘Catholic’ party of the Episcopal Church was so great, that the General Convention missed by one vote the change of name from Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America to 'Holy Catholic Church…" with the omission of Protestant.

And today it prefers to go by the name “The Episcopal Church” (TEC) disregarding the Protestant.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

IOW, all you have is one giant post hoc fallacy.

– Mark L. Chance.

You one of those modernists who stalks others on threads and puts in humorous little notes. It would be more productive if you posted something that would help in information exchange or you may opt to go back and play your nintendo.

Oh yeah, I am sure you meant that you post-op did not go to well. sorry about that. That might need to be rectified. So don’t take the chance, MLChance!

 

[AJV]

Reference please.

What is wrong with the reference that I provided? Do Protestants pray for the dead? Do you admit that the prayers of the TEC show that they are praying for the dead? And if they do not, could you please explain why not?

Moreover, since when is it a Protestant concept to give blessings for grace of a good confession, or to use the form “I absolve you”?

And if you could be so kind as to answer the earlier questions like what is the sigificance of “consecratio” and why that makes the NO like the BCP and the other ones, I would appreciate that as well.

 

[mlchance]

You one of those modernists who stalks others on threads and puts in humorous little notes. It would be more productive if you posted something that would help in information exchange or you may opt to go back and play your nintendo.

I’m not a modernist. Why the consistent use of ad hominem?

Oh yeah, I am sure you meant that you post-op did not go to well. sorry about that. That might need to be rectified. So don’t take the chance, MLChance!

Consider yourself reported to the moderators.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.