Was The OF Created By Protestants?

[Catholic4Jesus]

As a former Traditionalist, I was taught that the Ordinary Form of the Mass which Pope Paul VI created in 1969 was written by him with the help of 6 Protestant ministers and that’s why the Mass is “Protestantized.” How can I respond to this ridiculous claim?

 

[GWright]

Sadly, It is true that 6 prominent protestant ministers were involved with the changes.

When the liturgical changes were first presented to the Cardinals, they were rejected out of hand - they were then implemented via imposition, not by agreement.

Perhaps worse, Annibale Bugini, the Catholic priest who was secretary of the commission which worked on the changes, is accused of having been a freemason by traditionalist Catholics.

Once the changes were imposed, Bugini described them as “a major conquest of the Catholic Church” - which seems a strange thing to say, for someone who genuinely had the good of the Church at his heart.

As I understand it, part of the thinking / hope behind the Vatican II changes was that change would be a step toward Christian unity, by making Catholicism and the mass more acceptable to the protestant mind.

In my opinion this was well intentioned, but has backfired. While the Catholic Church went out on a limb to try to work towards unity, most protestant denominations have only seen fit to further indulge themselves by moving away from Christ’s teachings and Christian tradition, for example, in cases of:

• divorce and remarriage, as taught by Christ
• the model of Christian ministry created by Christ
• artificial birth control
• the current revisionist attitude towards homosexuality and the meaning of marriage

etc etc.

Essentially, Protestantism has capitulated to secularism and mans own base desires.

Their failure in this regard is chiefly down to the fact that their churches are not the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the one about which he said “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. No, their churches are the ones founded by King Henry VIII, or John Knox, or Bob Smith, or whoever - usually for direct personal advantage.

Another contributing factor has been their misguided notion that Christian love means “anything goes” - which, at heart, really reflects a lack of courage or will to articulate genuine Christianity - and a desire to keep pace with secular attitudes, which they foolishly thought would mean their continued relevance. “Amen, I say to you - they have received their reward.”

In my opinion, the Catholic Church has now realised that some aspects of what came out of Vatican II were either misguided, or misinterpreted by the faithful. Thanks to our wonderful Pope Benedict XVI, we are now edging back towards tradition, via Summorum Pontificum (promoting the Tridentine mass), the revision of the Missal (to make it more closely agree with the Tridentine mass) and other such initiatives.

It is my prayer that our new Pope will have the courage and vision to continue this trend, and truly achieve the renewal of the Church through tradition.

His name escapes me, but one of the Cardinals who commented on the Vatican II liturgical changes said “if this is what you give to the people, you will only get old women at mass.”

Looking around my Church of a Sunday, I find it hard to disagree.

 

[Melchior_1]

There was Protestant observers at several Councils. There were even some at Trent.

I suppose you can ask; whose name is on the Missal? Who authorized it’s use?

Venerable Pope Paul VI. That sounds Catholic to me.

 

[Cristiano]

As a former Traditionalist, I was taught that the Ordinary Form of the Mass which Pope Paul VI created in 1969 was written by him with the help of 6 Protestant ministers and that’s why the Mass is “Protestantized.” How can I respond to this ridiculous claim?

My answer is that people making those claims are quite ignorant of Catholicism. Catholics that say that the Mass has been “Protestantized” are also making heretical statements because the Church cannot contradict her teachings thus it cannot be Catholic and Protesting herself at the same time. If theu use “Protestantized” in other manners then my take is that the are willing to use a derogatory term toward the Church and that is sinful too.

 

[Timothysis]

Sadly, It is true that 6 prominent protestant ministers were involved with the changes.

This is patently untrue. There were, as said, protestant observers at the Vatican II meetings JUST like there were at many sessions of the council of Trent. They were simply observers with no official function. It is completely false to say that the six protestant observers had any hand in the drafting of the missal.

*"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” *(Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649). "

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Sadly, It **is true **that 6 prominent protestant ministers were involved with the changes.

When the liturgical changes were first presented to the Cardinals, they were rejected out of hand - they were then implemented via imposition, not by agreement.

Perhaps worse, Annibale Bugini, the Catholic priest who was secretary of the commission which worked on the changes, **is accused **of having been a freemason by traditionalist Catholics.

Once the changes were imposed, Bugini described them as “a major conquest of the Catholic Church” - which seems a strange thing to say, for someone who genuinely had the good of the Church at his heart.

As I understand it, part of the thinking / hope behind the Vatican II changes was that change would be a step toward Christian unity, by making Catholicism and the mass more acceptable to the protestant mind.

**In my opinion **this was well intentioned, but has backfired. While the Catholic Church went out on a limb to try to work towards unity, most protestant denominations have only seen fit to further indulge themselves by moving away from Christ’s teachings and Christian tradition, for example, in cases of:

• divorce and remarriage, as taught by Christ
• the model of Christian ministry created by Christ
• artificial birth control
• the current revisionist attitude towards homosexuality and the meaning of marriage

etc etc.

Essentially, Protestantism has capitulated to secularism and mans own base desires.

Their failure in this regard is chiefly down to the fact that their churches are not the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the one about which he said “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. No, their churches are the ones founded by King Henry VIII, or John Knox, or Bob Smith, or whoever - usually for direct personal advantage.

Another contributing factor has been their misguided notion that Christian love means “anything goes” - which, at heart, really reflects a lack of courage or will to articulate genuine Christianity - and a desire to keep pace with secular attitudes, which they foolishly thought would mean their continued relevance. “Amen, I say to you - they have received their reward.”

In my opinion, the Catholic Church has now realised that some aspects of what came out of Vatican II were either misguided, or misinterpreted by the faithful. Thanks to our wonderful Pope Benedict XVI, we are now edging back towards tradition, via Summorum Pontificum (promoting the Tridentine mass), the revision of the Missal (to make it more closely agree with the Tridentine mass) and other such initiatives.

It is my prayer that our new Pope will have the courage and vision to continue this trend, and truly achieve the renewal of the Church through tradition.

His name escapes me, but one of the Cardinals who commented on the Vatican II liturgical changes said “if this is what you give to the people, you will only get old women at mass.”

Looking around my Church of a Sunday, I find it hard to disagree.

Please offer some concrete proof of the claims you make against those at the Council. I also bolded those statements that are your own opinion, so that future readers don’t think that your claims are necessarily truthful or the opinion of the Church.

We need to be careful to distinguish between actions of those who would take any excuse to do what they want and the true teachings of the Church through the Vatican II council.

 

[tabycat]

Where is the proof that the OF was created by Protestants?

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

Where is the proof that the OF was created by Protestants?

There’s supposedly a picture that I was shown once where Paul VI was standing with 6 Protestant ministers but none of them had any paper or any other type of drafting material in their hands so…good question.

 

[malambo]

In which way is the Paul VI’s missal less catholic than the missal of the pope Pius V? Does it matter whoever gave their opinion or contributed in one way or another? How can someone imagine that Paul VI was less catholic than Benedict XVI! Or that Vatican II was less of a council than Trent!
When pope Calixtus decided to have the liturgy in Latin instead of Greek, Hippolitus refused to accept his authority, and became an antipope. Throughout the centuries, the Church has gone through many changes, remaining faithful, while responding to the impulses of the Spirit.
The Paul VI’s missal made possible the participation of the people, who felt much closer to Christ in the celebration of the sacred liturgy.

 

[curlycool89]

There’s supposedly a picture that I was shown once where Paul VI was standing with 6 Protestant ministers but none of them had any paper or any other type of drafting material in their hands so…good question.

So, the conspiracy revolves around the fact that the Pope was at one time in the vicinity of some Protestant Ministers? And… Nothing else?

Seriously, that’s pathetic even among conspiracy theories. Dan Brown’s crummy fiction books sound more credible then that.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Some peoples (who I will not go into) see anti-Catholic conspiracies in their soup. And it shows a distinct lack of faith in God’s Providence that they believe they need to be the ones to “defend” the Church, as if Christ forgot about us or something. And the irony of ironies is that the more they tred this route of preaching “infiltrations” and that the Church has been “hijacked”, the more they sound like the Protestant reformers themselves. But of course it’s not them, because they’ve got the Truth!

I suppose you can ask; whose name is on the Missal? Who authorized it’s use?

Venerable Pope Paul VI. That sounds Catholic to me.

And in the end that’s all that matters.

I wonder what these people would say if they found out that we stole Christmas trees from pagans? And by and large all of our philosophy from the Greeks (Who were, again, pagans. Or deists even).

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t say whether it was created by Protestants but I attended a funeral service for my niece at a Lutheran Church back in November. It was almost identical to the English OF, though it still had the old translations.

 

[OraLabora]

I can’t say whether it was created by Protestants but I attended a funeral service for my niece at a Lutheran Church back in November. It was almost identical to the English OF, though it still had the old translations.

Whereas a High Church Anglican Mass would look like an English EF Mass

 

[ProVobis]

Whereas a High Church Anglican Mass would look like an English EF Mass

English EF? No such thing in my book.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

As a former Traditionalist, I was taught that the Ordinary Form of the Mass which Pope Paul VI created in 1969 was written by him with the help of 6 Protestant ministers and that’s why the Mass is “Protestantized.” How can I respond to this ridiculous claim?

Why trot out this tired old canard?

 

[Timothysis]

I can’t say whether it was created by Protestants but I attended a funeral service for my niece at a Lutheran Church back in November. It was almost identical to the English OF, though it still had the old translations.

That’s because they Lutherans used Pope Paul’s missal when they redrafted their liturgy books in the late 1970s which is an odd thing to do since it contains beliefs and practices that contradict their own. I doubt that we would hear the same criticisms had they used the missal of Pope John XXIII.

And you can most certainly say that it WASN’T created by protestants because it factually wasn’t and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship said so.

 

[OraLabora]

English EF? No such thing in my book.

OK, it looks like what the EF would look like if it were celebrated in English. That better?

 

[GWright]

Please offer some concrete proof of the claims you make against those at the Council.

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:
"Archbishop Bugini:

What role did the “Observers” play in the Consilium? Nothing more than that of “Observers”. First of all, they only took part in the study meetings. In the second place, they behaved with impeccable discretion. They never intervened in the discussions and never asked to speak.

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

The Protestant Observers did not participate in the elaboration of the texts of the new Missal.

(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):
Cardinal Baum:

They are 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**

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)
Robert Brown:

Thus, although we had no direct “voice” on the Council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable strong right arms, the periti

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

Protestant observers made an important contribution

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

I also bolded those statements that are your own opinion, so that future readers don’t think that your claims are necessarily truthful or the opinion of the Church.

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:
Archbishop Bugini:

to create a worship service that any Hindu, Buddhist, or Protestant could attend and feel perfectly at home with

(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)

Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the Liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts

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

 

[GWright]

This is patently untrue. There were, as said, protestant observers at the Vatican II meetings JUST like there were at many sessions of the council of Trent. They were simply observers with no official function. It is completely false to say that the six protestant observers had any hand in the drafting of the missal.

*"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” *(Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649). "

Hi Timothysis,

Please see my post above to Mrs Sally. There have been various contradictory statements made regarding this.

Perhaps, indeed, there is no controversy, and the contradictions were down to loose or careless use of language.

However, even if this is true, it would not explain the credible sources who implicated ++Bugini as a freemason, or what Cardinal Heenan later stated in his autobiography, or the statements from various Protestants ministers saying they “did indeed have a voice”.

Cheers
GWright

 

[GWright]

Where is the proof that the OF was created by Protestants?

Hi Tabycat

No-one is saying it was “created” by protestants - it was of course created by the Council.

The controversy is around how (if at all) protestant ministers influenced the creation.

Edit - suffice to say, given the collapse in vocations and the strong decline in mass attendance, following the council until the present day, I do struggle to see the changes in a positive light.

Even as a small child, when me, my mum and my younger sisters went to mass with my (late) granny (born in the 1920s) - I was very aware that my grannys Catholicism seemed somehow different to our Catholicism.

And I could never imagine how I would ever be like her, based on the format of the novus ordo which never made much of an impression on me at all, such that I stopped going to Church as soon as I could (16) and did not return for many years, until I was 29. (my return was purely down to the grace of God in my opinion).

Cheers!
GWright

 

[Zekariya]

When pope Calixtus decided to have the liturgy in Latin instead of Greek, Hippolitus refused to accept his authority, and became an antipope. Throughout the centuries, the Church has gone through many changes, remaining faithful, while responding to the impulses of the Spirit.

I would like to read more about this if you could provide a link.