Was The OF Created By Protestants?

[larsont7]

Hi Mrs Sally
Please note I do not claim to be an expert or authority, (I wasn’t even born when the council took place!), I am just sharing my understand based on what I have read & heard.

In May, 1970, the publication * Documentation Catholique * carried a picture of Pope Paul IV with the 6 protestant ministers - referred to as mere “observers” of the Council - on its cover.

This lead to controversy in some Catholic countries, regarding the role these men had played and the reason for their presence at all. However, it was officially denied that they had played any role other than merely observing.

In the July/August, 1974, edition of the publication Notitiae carried a statement from Archbishop Bugini - I wrongly referred to him as a “priest” earlier - which reinforced these previous denials. His words in the publication:

In Feburary 1976, the Vatican press office gave the following reply on the matter, in response to a question from journalist Georges Huber:

(This denial was also printed the July, 1976, edition of the publication *La Documentation Catholique *)

In April, 1976, the leading Catholic writer in Italy at the time, Tito Casini, publicly accused Archbishop Bugini of being a freemason.

Father Malachi Martin, who worked near ++Bugini inside the Vatican, publicly stated that Bugini was definitely a mason.

The various denials mentioned above contradicted previous statements regarding the role of the Protestant ministers, as follows:

In June, 1967, Monsignor Baum - now Cardinal Baum - made the following statement (my emphasis):

Baum was also the first ever Catholic spokesman to be invited to address the United Church of Christ, an American Protestant denomination. He told his audience that the protestant ministers “have had a voice” at the Council.

Other protestant observers made statements which supported Baum. To give but one example, Robert Brown, a Presbyterian observer stated: (again my emphasis)

The writer Philip Kaufman, in a 1995 book, stated:

All this - and more detailed information and references - can be found at these links:

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-appx3.htm

tanbooks.com/doct/vatican_liturgy.htm

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/fmass.htm

But there was no requirement for this - I was very careful to use the terms “In my opinion” or “In my understanding” - to make it very clear that what I was stating was indeed my own opinion or my own understanding.

I enjoy this forum very much, and have a great respect for my fellow members and the moderators, so please know that I would never attempt to deceive or purposely misinform anyone here on any matter.

I guess it seems strange to me that, if the protestant ministers had no role - direct or indirect - then why were they even there in the first place? What would be the point of their presence at all?

I also think ++Buginis own comments pose serious questions. He publicly stated his aim at the Council was:

(see the last of the 4 links provided above)

I feel he definitely has/had a case to answer.

In his autobiography, Cardinal Heenan of Westminster stated: (my emphasis)

Which seems to suggest that things rather “got out of hand” at the Council.

Again, I do not claim to be an expert or authority - I am only sharing my understanding based on what I have read or been told.

I am not participating in this discussion to rock anyones boat - it is simply a matter I am interested in and I feel there are some serious questions regarding it.

Best regards
GWright

This was an outstanding post. It’s too bad most people skimmed over it and just replied to another one of your comments. If you look at quotes from people at the time of Vatican II and soon after, you will see that there is a very prevalent Protestant influence in the liturgy of Paul VI. The key figure is obviously Bugnini, and anyone who looks at his influence and what he said about the Council should raise red flags to anyone.

 

[ProVobis]

No. As per my post the English (i.e. the “our”) was still and is theologically correct. That and so many other objections to the OF (e.g., the “for all” in the pre-reform Consecration prayer) are also theologically correct.

Here’s a sobering thought: 90-95% of Catholics worldwide don’t go by what the English says or by English theology. And they probably don’t care either.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Here’s a sobering thought: 90-95% of Catholics worldwide don’t go by what the English says or by English theology. And they probably don’t care either.

But 90-95% of English Catholics know Catholic theology from what is said to them in English in the Mass.

Furthermore, I believe Catholics to be a most caring people, in virtue of their being baptized, since that baptism provides them with a positive bias toward cooperation with God’s grace:

1121 … Baptism … confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible, it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church.

And of course the Mass is an inexhaustible source and well-spring of grace.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

When people start issuing red flags and warnings about a form of the mass promulgated by the Church under the authority of the Holy Father, it’s time to close a thread. This is getting out of hand. TC Forum does not exist for members to put the liturgy or the Holy See on trial. Sharing and asking questions is one thing. Passing judgment is another.

CLOSED