What is the best argument to promote the TLM?

[SpiritusSanctus]

Protestant observers were also present at the Council of Trent. In fact, some sessions were postponed until they could arrive. Do you suggest that this raises a red flag about the Council of Trent?

If they found their way in , then they can find their way out. Your whole argument against the OF is that these things are in there, yet you cannot show me where any of this is called for in the missal. So I really do think that it DOES matter. The Holy Father celebrates the OF, yet we do not see these things. The problem does not lie with the missal but those in charge who allow it.

1.- Protestants actually gave suggestions at Vatican II. Even if they did give suggestions at the Council of Trent, I doubt they were taken very seriously.

2.- Pope Benedict XVI is more of a Traditional Pope than the previous few we’ve had. Not everything at Vatican II is going to be seen in his Masses. And they don’t have to call for it in the Missal. Why do you think Novus Ordo Masses are never exactly the same? They don’t go 100% by the Missal. They add whatever they want to in there. Thus where girl altar servers can come in even though the Missal says nothing about it.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Actually, Mass attendance prior to the Council was already in decline here in America during the “Golden Age” of the 1950’s, the same with vocations. YOUR claim is unsupported by statistical data. Attendance in Europe had been in decline, too, before the Council. So there. It has been posted here nearly ad nauseum that people left because the Church did not change its classic stance on issues such as divorce and birth control.

You have yet to back up your assertions of Mass attendance and vocations in the 50’s with statistical data. We have copied and pasted our data with a link. Until you can do the same your assertions are hollow.

No matter how many times you post something it does not make it true. Differing with the Church on divorce and birth control in particular do not cause people to leave the Church. A vast majority of Catholics in the Church today believe and practice divorce and birth control.

Those who hit the road, did so immediately after and following the Council. A Council that failed in every stated goal. Once again, please tell me one goal stated by the Council that it achieved? What are the “good fruits” of the Council?

Please cite one instance where protestants celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass with a belief in the True Presence according to a liturgy of the Catholic Church.

That’s just it! They can say the exact words of the Novus Ordo Mass and **not ** believe in the Real Presence (just like most NO Catholics today) and they can do so because the Rite is so ambiguous. That’s our entire point.

 

[stevusmagnus]

please show me from the missal of pope paul vi anything that is protestant.

So this is your only response to everything I posted and quoted for you?

Quotations from a Lutheran minister present and the architect of the New Mass mean nothing ?

As I’ve said repeatedly, what is Protestant about the New Mass is not so much what is in it as what is not in it. Look at the differences in the offeratory. Bugnini took an explicitly Catholic Mass and deformed it into an ambiguous rite able to be said in good faith by Protestants.

Cite me one instance where Protestants have ever used the Missal of Pius V.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Excepting the fact that the Church in Europe was in full hemorrhage before Vatican II was convened, that cannot be known. It is true that there was a real problem to be addressed. What other results a difference in approach would have brought, who can know?

Please cite your exact statistics to support this claim and then we’ll examine them.

 

[MarkThompson]

Quotations from a Lutheran minister present and the architect of the New Mass mean nothing ?

Actually, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Archbishop Bugnini ever said anything like, “We must strip from our prayers anything that is Catholic.” You can try to find proof of this, but you won’t succeed. It’s always attributed to some article in L’Osservatore Romano, but the text of the article, context of the quotation, or (gasp) a scan of the article is never provided. If you can find any proof that this quotation is genuine, I’d love to see it.

Same with the Lutheran quote, for that matter.

 

[Timothysis]

So this is your only response to everything I posted and quoted for you?

Quotations from a Lutheran minister present and the architect of the New Mass mean nothing ?

As I’ve said repeatedly, what is Protestant about the New Mass is not so much what is in it as what is not in it. Look at the differences in the offeratory. Bugnini took an explicitly Catholic Mass and deformed it into an ambiguous rite able to be said in good faith by Protestants.

Cite me one instance where Protestants have ever used the Missal of Pius V.

If you cannot cite anything in the missal that is protestant then please just say so. Insinuation is hardly credible evidence.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Actually, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Archbishop Bugnini ever said anything like, “We must strip from our prayers anything that is Catholic.” You can try to find proof of this, but you won’t succeed. It’s always attributed to some article in L’Osservatore Romano, but the text of the article, context of the quotation, or (gasp) a scan of the article is never provided. If you can find any proof that this quotation is genuine, I’d love to see it.

Same with the Lutheran quote, for that matter.

Here is the quote: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

This citation and quotation is all over the place and has been for a long long while. Everyone has access to it worldwide.

Surely if this citation has been inaccurate for 55 years there must be hundreds of blogs and “This Rock” articles pointing this out. Surely you can produce one credible article claiming Bugnini never said it and that the citation is wrong.

Furthermore, the citation is clear and is given. You can look it up if you so desire.

 

[Timothysis]

Actually, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Archbishop Bugnini ever said anything like, “We must strip from our prayers anything that is Catholic.” You can try to find proof of this, but you won’t succeed. It’s always attributed to some article in L’Osservatore Romano, but the text of the article, context of the quotation, or (gasp) a scan of the article is never provided. If you can find any proof that this quotation is genuine, I’d love to see it.

Someone here once posted that what is referred to as this quote from Archbishop Bugnini is actually a very rough and inaccurate translation of what he said. The “key” words were translated in a way as to make them appear much more extraordinary than they really were. You are right, though, that it is always the same unverified quote used over and over.

Same with the Lutheran quote, for that matter.

Very true. You would think that if this was the prevalent thought among protestants you would find more sources of it than just the same article.

 

[stevusmagnus]

If you cannot cite anything in the missal that is protestant then please just say so. Insinuation is hardly credible evidence.

I’ve given you myriads of examples and made our position clear and you’ve given no substantive response. You merely repeat an already answered question that has no relevance to our position and is a strawman/ red herring.

What is Protestant about the NO us the fact that explicitly Catholic prayers regarding the propitiatory sacrifice were deliberately omitted to appease Protestants. Other changes and omissions were made with this in mind as clear quotations from Bugnini himself and the Protestant ministers show.

The real question to ask is what in the Novus Ordo Mass is explicitly and unambiguously Catholic that Protestants will not accept.

 

[Timothysis]

Differing with the Church on divorce and birth control in particular do not cause people to leave the Church.

What rock do you live under?

That’s just it! They can say the exact words of the Novus Ordo Mass and **not ** believe in the Real Presence (just like most NO Catholics today) and they can do so because the Rite is so ambiguous. That’s our entire point.

Then it is a confused point. Look, if anyone knows anything about the Catholic faith it is that Catholics believe that during the Mass simple bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If someone can use a Catholic liturgy as a means to something that they want to make it into other than what it is, then the fault lies with them, not the liturgy. The KKK have used the symbol of the cross for their own motives; do you suggest that there is something inherently faulty about a cross?

If a protestant can hear the words "This is my body…this is my blood" and believe it to be anything other than that, then they are the ones who are deficient, not the liturgy.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Very true. You would think that if this was the prevalent thought among protestants you would find more sources of it than just the same article.

Here’s a quote (a portion of it) from the Superior Consistory of the protestant Church of the Confession of Augsburg of Alsace-Lorraine in response to the new rite;

“We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice.”
L’Eglise en Alsace, January 1974

Another one from Anglican theologian Dr. J.W. Charley:

“Much of what Kung has called ‘the valid demands of the reformers’ has now been met by the Church of Rome in the new Eucharistic prayers, even though in these there remain echoes of the pre-Reformation language of Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
Windsor Agreement, on the Eucharist

Jean Guitton quotes a protestant Journal as saying that the new Eucharistic prayers have dropped “the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God.”

L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 1967, p. 3

An Anglican Minister:

”Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa."
Catholic Herald, 1 August 1975

 

[MarkThompson]

Here is the quote: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

This citation and quotation is all over the place and has been for a long long while. Everyone has access to it worldwide.

Surely if this citation has been inaccurate for 55 years there must be hundreds of blogs and “This Rock” articles pointing this out. Surely you can produce one credible article claiming Bugnini never said it and that the citation is wrong.

Furthermore, the citation is clear and is given. You can look it up if you so desire.

Okay, see here.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Someone here once posted that what is referred to as this quote from Archbishop Bugnini is actually a very rough and inaccurate translation of what he said. The “key” words were translated in a way as to make them appear much more extraordinary than they really were.

Any evidence for this? Can you cite any credible articles in the last 55 years arguing that Bugnini and the Lutheran ministers mentioned did not say these things.

In any case, there are multiple quotes from Bugnini and others at the time about the Mass. It is clear to everybody what the motivations were behind the Novus Ordo, it was meant to be an ecumenical Mass. Anyone can look at the changes and see striking similarities to the changes made by Protestants Cranmer and Luther.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I bring it up because they are related, they go together in the ‘spirit of Vatican II’. Rebellion may very well have started prior to V2 and it should have been corrected immediately. Acquiescence is never the answer. The Truth doesn’t change, therefore neither should our worship of it.

This subject is important because souls are at risk. How many Catholics receive the Blessed Sacrament in a state of grace these days? How many are using contraception? How many believe in the Real Presence? We don’t need priests to make us feel all warm and fuzzy - we need them to help keep us from the fires of Hell.

The EF needs to be added to increase the chances of getting to heaven; and God deserves our best efforts at worshipping Him. It’s a different form, not just another novel variation of the NO like a jazz, youth, or folk mass.

Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell.

Lex Orandi, lex credendi.

Unfortunately, many were using contraception in the 30s and 40s even. Others, while not using a chemical or barrier, were certainly not open to life. Again, the changes were happening before the council and if anything, one could argue that the revised rubrics were a result of the shift in culture rather than a precursor.

The best plan for introducing the EF back into a parish has been given. All of these other issues are subjects for catechesis, which we lay people can easily undertake to improve. Volunteer to teach CCD, help with RCIA, start a Bible study, or study on church documents – perhaps even the documents of the Second Vatican Council!

 

[malphono]

Here is the quote: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

Someone here once posted that what is referred to as this quote from Archbishop Bugnini is actually a very rough and inaccurate translation of what he said. The “key” words were translated in a way as to make them appear much more extraordinary than they really were. You are right, though, that it is always the same unverified quote used over and over.

I have never been a fan of that particular late Archbishop or his horrid liturgical agenda. But as much as I have scrupulously avoided the OF for years, neither do I subscribe to the “OF is Protestant” theory . At the same time, though, I think it would be fun to read the oft-cited article in the original Italian. I’ve looked but have so far had no luck finding it. If anyone has a verifiable link (I mean a real link, not to someone’s blog or one or another polemic website), please post it.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Okay, see here.

This is a better link.

What specifically are you referring to? The quoted portion was in Italian. I google translated it and it seems to be about the same quotation I gave previously.

 

[stevusmagnus]

I have never been a fan of that particular late Archbishop or his horrid liturgical agenda. But as much as I have scrupulously avoided the OF for years, neither do I subscribe to the “OF is Protestant” theory . At the same time, though, I think it would be fun to read the oft-cited article in the original Italian. I’ve looked but have so far had no luck finding it. If anyone has a verifiable link (I mean a real link, not to someone’s blog or one or another polemic website), please post it.

You’re missing the argument. The argument is that the NO was Protestantized and made ambiguous as compared to the TLM. I don’t think this is really in dispute. One Mass is acceptable to Protestants, one is not. Once clearly contradicts Protestant belief, one does not. That Bugnini wanted to eliminate the Roman Canon (!) and also develop a new rosary where “Holy Mary Mother of God” was omitted tells us all we need to know.

It is not like Bugnini’s designs were secret. He and the Protestant “observers” told us many times what they were up to. This is not some secret revelation.

 

[MarkThompson]

This is a better link.

Yes, thanks.

What specifically are you referring to? The quoted portion was in Italian. I google translated it and it seems to be about the same quotation I gave previously.

Which part? The sentence in question is given towards the beginning of the article, but that’s just to show what he’s talking about. I can’t find anything in the Italian text that comes particularly close to it. (And don’t misunderstand, I’m not defending the outcome of the changes to the Mass – just pointing out that there’s no evidence Bugnini ever said this quote.)

 

[stevusmagnus]

What rock do you live under?

Very charitable of you. Last I checked I’m not living under a rock and far far less Catholics in 1965 believed divorce and birth control were ok and practiced it than now. Not only did Catholics exit the Church in droves after VCII, the ones that stayed became less Catholic as their belief in the Real Presence drastically decreased and a majority of US Catholic voters just voted for the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.

Then it is a confused point. Look, if anyone knows anything about the Catholic faith it is that Catholics believe that during the Mass simple bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Really? A Gallup poll in 1992 revealed that only 30% of US Catholics believe that they are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

If someone can use a Catholic liturgy as a means to something that they want to make it into other than what it is, then the fault lies with them, not the liturgy. The KKK have used the symbol of the cross for their own motives; do you suggest that there is something inherently faulty about a cross?

It seems you are failing to understand a rather basic concept I’ve been stating throughout this thread. I’m not sure how I can make it any clearer. The Lutherans have said there is no problem in them saying the Novus Ordo as is because, as is, it does not contradict any of their beliefs. The entire Mass can be said and understood in a Protestant sense. This was the goal. The Lutherans are not “making it into” anything other than what it is, word for word. That a Protestant would have no trouble using Catholic prayers of Mass to be understood in a heretical light should be troubling to all Catholics.

It is an ambiguous rite. Catholics can say it and understand one thing and Protestants can say it and understand another. This works to dilute and water down Catholic Truth in the minds of the faithful as can be seen by poll result after poll result that show a 30% belief in the Real Presence among Catholics. It is probably worse for divorce and contraception.

Furthermore check out Gallup Poll Mass attendance figures for the US by year.

1958: 74%
1965: 71%, after the Mass was allowed to be said in the vulgar tongues
1968: 65%, after the very words of Consecration were changed
1969: 63%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was first announced
1970: 60%, when the Novus Ordo Worship Service was introduced
1971: 50%, after one year of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
1988: 48%
1993: 25%
1995: 22%
1999: 19%, after twenty years of exclusive Novus Ordo worship services
2001: 17%

 

[stevusmagnus]

Yes, thanks.

Which part? The sentence in question is given towards the beginning of the article, but that’s just to show what he’s talking about. I can’t find anything in the Italian text that comes particularly close to it. (And don’t misunderstand, I’m not defending the outcome of the changes to the Mass – just pointing out that there’s no evidence Bugnini ever said this quote.)

There is certainly evidence he said the quote. I (and hundreds of other people) have continually given the source for 55 years. Did Bugnini ever deny it?

The google translation of the Italian comes out as follows:

“Yet the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the way the union of the separated brethren, removing stone that can be while away an obstacle or embarrassment, led the Church, even those painful sacrifices.”

This is basically what the other quotation said. Plus, as you can tell, the google translator is far from exact.

This is arguing over minutiae as Bugnini is all over the place arguing for ecumenism in Catholic liturgical practices. He wanted to remove the Roman Canon and change the rosary for goodness sake!