Was The OF Created By Protestants?

[ProVobis]

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

Using whose translations? Anglicans?

I might be wrong, but I believe the Anglicans were invited by the ICEL to assist with the English translations.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow that the decline in Mass attendance, vocations, etc. was a direct result of the Council, especially given that Vatican II coincided with some disturbing social trends such as the birth control pill, mass media in every living room, and increased secularization of society that affected all mainstream churches at the same time, even those without a “Vatican II” type modernization.

 

[JReducation]

Right off the bat, the Ordinary Form of the Mass was not created by Protestants. There were Protestant theologians at the Council as observers. They did not have voice or vote in any committee. This does not mean that a Catholic bishop or theologian could not ask for their opinion. After all, the Protestant theologians that were invited were highly respect for their expertise in their particular area of theology. Take for example Dr. Scott Hahn. He did not become a credible biblical scholar because he converted to Catholicism. He was already a credible biblical scholar when he was Protestant.

In addition, the New Order of the Roman Missal, which is the actual name of the book, not the mass, was created after the Council by a liturgical committee authorized to do so by Ven. Paul VI. They allegedly made some mistakes, which Pope Paul corrected before promulgating the missal.

Also, it’s important to know that the current Roman Missal is not the one that Pope Paul VI promulgated. It’s in its third edition as are some of the ritual books and the lectionary.

Now let’s get to the Protestant question. Because an orange and a tangerine look similar does not make them the same fruit. There are many elements in Protestantism that are very Catholic. Just as there are many elements in Catholicism that are very Jewish, Greek and Roman. Think of Protestantism and Catholicism as cultures, just for a moment. The younger culture is always going to have traces of the older culture, not the other way around. I look like my father. My father does not look like me.

Let’s look at the Ordinary Form and see if it’s Catholic or Protestant. How is it structured? It is structured in two liturgies that hinge on each other: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This is not the way that a Lutheran liturgy is constructed. There is no liturgy of the Eucharist. There is a communion rite, which is not the same thing. Our model comes from the monastic model where the Word has a very prominent place in the life of monks. In fact, their entire day is built around the Word.

Next, is there a sacrifice offered in the Ordinary Form? The answer is yes. Even though the words are not repeated as often as they are in the Extraordinary Form, they are in all of the Eucharistic prayers leading up to the consecration. A Protestant would be horrified at the thought. They get horrified at the idea of a crucifix, imagine a sacrifice. The idea of a sacrifice is a very Catholic idea.

Then we must talk about transubstantiation. Even the Anglicans don’t buy that one. Only Catholics, schismatic Catholics and Orthodox adore Christ in the consecrated host and chalice. Every word in the Eucharistic prayer, after the moment of consecration is addressed to the Christ who is on the altar. Up to the consecration, the prayers all address the Father and mention the Holy Spirit. After the consecration, the prayers address Christ, because he is present at the altar, case in point, the Angnus Dei and the Lord I am not worthy. Protestants would burn one of their own at the stake if he talked to a “piece of bread and a cup of wine” as if he were talking to God. That’s absolutely Catholic and consistent with Catholic tradition.

We must also look at the concept of meal and communion. Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox use the terms meal and communion. But Protestants use it in a very different way. To Catholics and Orthodox communion means to become one with the body. We literally become one with Christ’s glorified body. And since we all come to the meal to partake of the same glorified body, we enter into a vertical and horizontal communion: union with God and with the rest of the Church. To the Protestant, this theology sounds like cannibalism. This is not how they explain communion. To begin with, there is no glorified body on the table for man to eat.

Let us go the the closing rite which is not part of the Liturgy of the Word or the Eucharist. It’s in there to pull it all together. The priest literally blesses the people. It is not a symbolic gesture. He blesses the people, because by virtue of being God’s people, we are made holy. very few Protestant communities believe that a minister can bless anything.

Look at the presider. In the Ordinary Form, just like in the Extraordinary Form, the Eastern rites and forms, the presider and deacon can trace their succession back to the original Apostles in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. No Protestant minister can trace his lineage any further back than a) the Catholic Church, b) a monarch, c) a council who elected him, d) his parent from whom he inherited his congregation or e) any combination of the above. Even in cases where deacons, priests and bishops are related by blood, in some cases fathers and sons, such as happens in the Eastern Churches, the line of succession is through the bishop back to the Apostles. The Protestants do not claim an Apostolic Succession.

Which part of the Ordinary Form is not Catholic? The fact that the first Protestants were Catholic may explain why some of them have liturgies that resemble those of the Augustinians, Benedictines and Franciscans. Unlike the Dominicans and Carmelites, these boys did not have their own rite. They used the Roman Rite and tweaked it here and there to reflect the culture of their respective religious orders.

The missal of Pope Paul VI borrowed very heavily from these orders. What the Church was calling the “New Order” or “Novus Ordo” was old to these religious orders. They sort of stood looking at each other wondering why they were going back to something that they had moved away from. It’s actually quite Catholic and any resemblance to Protestant services is because the child (albeit a rebellious one) often looks like the parent, but he is not the parent.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I would believe that the Protestants didn’t write the Latin texts of the OF Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s look at the Ordinary Form and see if it’s Catholic or Protestant. How is it structured? It is structured in two liturgies that hinge on each other: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This is not the way that a Lutheran liturgy is constructed. There is no liturgy of the Eucharist. There is a communion rite, which is not the same thing. Our model comes from the monastic model where the Word has a very prominent place in the life of monks. In fact, their entire day is built around the Word.

JR, the Lutheran service I attended was broken up into the Word and the Meal. It gave all the appearances of a Eucharist. (Interestingly enough the Liberal Catholic Church lists the celebration of the Eucharist on its sign.)

And if I remember correctly the definition of the first version of the Pauline Missal left out the word “Sacrifice” (It was defined as a Meal) but the definition was corrected later.

 

[Zekariya]

In the Byzantine Rite, there is the Liturgy of the Catechumens (the Liturgy of the Word) and, starting with the Creed, the Liturgy of the Faithful (the Liturgy of the Eucharist). This is certainly the historical way the Mass/Divine Liturgy is divided. This is not a Protestant innovation.

 

[GWright]

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow that the decline in Mass attendance, vocations, etc. was a direct result of the Council, especially given that Vatican II coincided with some disturbing social trends such as the birth control pill, mass media in every living room, and increased secularization of society that affected all mainstream churches at the same time, even those without a “Vatican II” type modernization.

A fair point, but neither is it automatically the case that the V2 changes had nothing to do with it.

I would argue that the way the Church has changed has led to people having a view of false equivalence of all Churches, a loss of belief In the real presence In the Eucharist and a general loss of reverence. All of these damage the faith of individuals and lead to lapsations.

No doubt that social change had something to do with it, but surely the Church should have been seeking to resist social change - not change with it?

You are right that the 1960s saw a lot of dramatic change and - at the time - I think it could have been very easy to be deceived that the world was (In some ways) changing for the better.

All that flower-power, “peace”, summer of love stuff etc could have been misinterpreted as the breaking down of barriers and a rise of love and tolerance among humanity.

But we know now - with hindsight - it was all just about sleeping around, drug-taking, sexual perversion, “doing what you want”, the primacy of the individual and the like.

 

[GWright]

Right off the bat, the Ordinary Form of the Mass was not created by Protestants. There were Protestant theologians at the Council as observers. They did not have voice or vote in any committee.

So - Cardinals Baum and Heenan - and the protestant ministers themselves - were lying?

(see my quotes from them in an earlier post).

I do not think protestants “created” the new form of mass themselves, but there seems much to suggest they certainly influenced its creation, towards the goal of making it more acceptable to protestants.

 

[JReducation]

JR, the Lutheran service I attended was broken up into the Word and the Meal.

That’s right. They have the Liturgy of the Word and they have the Rite of Communion (meal). The Rite of Communion is not the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It’s part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

And if I remember correctly the definition of the first version of the Pauline Missal left out the word “Sacrifice” (It was defined as a Meal) from the definition but was corrected later.

The sacrifice was never absent from the Ordinary Form of the Mass. The word was in the Eucharistic Prayer either by direct mention or in a euchological way.

The term was not present in the early “definitions” of the mass after the reform. There are some possible reasons for that omission and I believe that all are credible.

1. Those who wrote the definition assumed that every Catholic at the time knew that the mass was a sacrifice. After all, they were coming from the Tridentine Form.
2. They wanted to soften the wording to attract Protestants.
3. They wanted to call attention to the Supper of the Lord, which theTridentine Form does not highlight as much.

Nonetheless, in the Eucharistic prayers, which is where it matters, there is mention of Christ as lamb and sacrifice. The word is explicitly used and in one of the prayers, I can’t recall which, the word sacrifice is not there, but the narrative talks about it in a euchological way, which is legitimate in Catholic tradition. You can use a word or you can tell about the thing that to which the word refers.

I can say that Christ is the sacrifice offered to the Father for the salvation of the world. That’s an explicit mention. I can say that Christ was incarnate to be the paschal lamb. That’s euchological.

 

[JReducation]

So - Cardinals Baum and Heenan - and the protestant ministers themselves - were lying?

(see my quotes from them in an earlier post).

I do not think protestants “created” the new form of mass themselves, but there seems much to suggest they certainly influenced its creation, towards the goal of making it more acceptable to protestants.

As has been said. There were Protestant scholars at the Council. There was nothing that prohibited anyone asking their opinion or their (name removed by moderator)ut. That does not mean that they have a voice. It is not remarkable if they were asked their opinion about the liturgy.

Neither they nor the Cardinal can say that they created the Ordinary Form, because the form did not come out of the Council. The document on the reform of the liturgy came out of the Council. The actual reform came later. The form is younger than the Council. They may have been invited to comment on the liturgy and some of their ideas my have been used. They could have even been consulted at a later date. There is nothing wrong with that either. We do it all the time. We consult scholars of all faiths on many points, including points of faith and worship. You take what is Catholic and you leave the rest.

At the end of the day, what ideas did they contribute to the liturgy that are not Catholic? What is there in the Ordinary Form that was never seen in the Catholic Church? I’m speaking of the form as the rubrics say it must be celebrated, not as some creative thinkers celebrate it. Everything in the Ordinary Form comes from something else that is Catholic. Much of it is borrowed from monasticism.

 

[curlycool89]

I would argue that the way the Church has changed has led to people having a view of false equivalence of all Churches, a loss of belief In the real presence In the Eucharist and a general loss of reverence. All of these damage the faith of individuals and lead to lapsations.

I’m going to nitpick your logic for a minute.

Yes, you may argue such a statement. But in your reply, you have done no such thing. All you have done is made an assertion that “the way the Church has changed has led to people having a view of … [blah blah blah]”. Again, that’s not an argument, that’s an assertion. Logically speaking, it is a dogmatic assertion because you have offered zero evidence to back up such a statement.

If you are going to make an argument, then make an argument. An assertion is not an argument, an assertion is where you just make a statement. If you just want to offer that as your opinion, then say it’s your opinion.

 

[PacoG]

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

You mean like the Missal of 1965?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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?

Have spent 20+ years as a Protestant I always laugh at this claim. What I attended looked NOTHING like a Catholic Mass! I wonder if they have ever read Justin Martyr?

 

[Megan7]

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

Why was there a need to have Protestants as “observers” or whatever their role was in a Catholic Council Could someone please answer this for me, thank you.
God bless.

 

[Cat]

Why was there a need to have Protestants as “observers” or whatever their role was in a Catholic Council Could someone please answer this for me, thank you.
God bless.

I am not a Catholic scholar like JR Education (thank God for him!), but as an ex-Protestant, I see nothing wrong with inviting Protestants who are, after all, baptized believers and therefore separated brethren. It seems obvious that they had no voice in the Council, and their only role was to observe and report back to their ecclesial communities.

The goal is unification of Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox back into One Church. You don’t get unified by telling people to stay away.

Back in the 1960s, the world started shrinking, and in her wisdom, Holy Mother Church could see that in the future, communication barriers would break down and all the traditions that kept Catholics and Protestants apart would crumple. I think Holy Mother Church made a wise decision to get to know “the enemy” and start the work to woo them back into the Church, rather than making a futile attempt to keep Protestants outside the doors.

Protestants don’t “contaminate” Catholicism. When a Protestant is present in a Catholic gathering, the Holy Spirit can work in their heart and persuade them of the beauty and correctness of the Catholic Church. When they are away from their ecclesial communities and their own apologists, Protestants can truly listen to Catholic teachers, and they can observe the goodness and love of Catholics, and most importantly, they can be confronted with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament–this is a awe-inspiring experience for Protestants. Yes, many continue to deny that Jesus is Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament. But others–like me–recognize Him.

Don’t begrudge Protestants a chance to step inside the doors of the “castle” that is the Catholic Church.

 

[TimothyH]

Why was there a need to have Protestants as “observers” or whatever their role was in a Catholic Council Could someone please answer this for me, thank you.
God bless.

Brother JR already answered it.

They weren’t random Protestants brought in off the streets. These were well respected scholars with expertise in specific area of theology, biblical studies, etc.

Douglas Horton was one such observer - he was the dean of Harvard Divinity School. Robert McAffee Brown was a professor of religion at Stanford. Even today, the greatest Old Testament scholars are Jewish.

These were experts in their respective fields and brought in for their expertise in those specific areas.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

At the end of the day, what ideas did they contribute to the liturgy that are not Catholic?

The Doxology to the Pater Noster, for one? Not to mention using a modernized version of Henry VIII’s Our Father in the English Mass.

 

[curlycool89]

Not to mention using a modernized version of Henry VIII’s Our Father in the English Mass.

That’s probably because it was the most well known English version of the Our Father and because there wasn’t an “official” English-language Catholic one. People probably already knew it as part of the Rosary or other devotions.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

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!

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).

I couldn’t agree more, but you know how Traditionalists are. If you even look at a Protestant, sometimes they can accuse you of worshiping with them I guess.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s probably because it was the most well known English version of the Our Father and because there wasn’t an “official” English-language Catholic one. People probably already knew it as part of the Rosary or other devotions.

But it had never been used in the Catholic Mass. In fact, any use of the all-vernacular in the Mass is something which the Reformers could claim as their idea.