Why No Last Gospel in N.O. Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
peary1 said:
There is nothing in the Last Gospel incompatible with Protestantism but its retention in the Novus Ordo Missae would have clashed with the pattern of Protestant Communion services which conclude with a blessing, going back to the time of Thomas Cranmer and his liturgical changes in the Church in England.
Click to expand...
Yes, as this shows.
 
Geremia said:
Yes, as this shows.
Click to expand...
Michael Davies sure did change his views from when the comparison was written and later in his life. He remained a champion of the EF, but came to understand that the OF is Catholic. Many of the practices that were added over time to what became the OF codified by Pope St. Pius V were placed there for good reasons, however they are not the only Catholic expression of they Mystical Supper, nor of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

An example of this would be that the confiteor (double or single) is not found in many Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgies. Based on the arguments of the list, they are either Protestant, or somehow Un-Catholic. The reality is that there exist Protestant, (Swedish Lutherans, Anglicans and others) who use liturgies that look externally very close to the EF yet the theology is very Protestant. If we rejet a liturgy based on what and how Protestants mimic the Catholic Church, we have to eject the EF, because some Protestants use it.
 
Filioque said:
An example of this would be that the confiteor (double or single) is not found in many Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgies. Based on the arguments of the list, they are either Protestant, or somehow Un-Catholic.
Click to expand...
You completely miss the point of this “Protestantization” in your rush, as others on the board do, to make an apples to oranges comparison to Eastern Liturgy, as if it were the gold standard for the world.

The difference, which escapes you and others, is that an advisory committee of non-Catholics influenced the formation of the Pauline Mass with the goal of coming up with a new universal Mass that Protestants could use, without holding their noses to inhale the “stink of oblation” as Luther put it, and that could be stretched into validity, surviving a deliberate mistranslation of a phrase of the Consecration (an ERROR which Pope Benedict has thankfully corrected).
Filioque said:
If we rejet a liturgy based on what and how Protestants mimic the Catholic Church, we have to eject the EF, because some Protestants use it.
Click to expand...
There are no Protestants that use the EF … it just looks to you like the EF because it has retained more elements of the original Catholic Mass than the OF. You completely ignore the chronology of the Pauline Mass. It was not the case that the OF was promulgated and suddenly, Protestants all over the world said “WOW - what a great new modern Mass these Catholics came up with! Lets all go copy them.”

Rather, they and Bugnini collaborated to come up with the mutually pleasing (to some at least), Hybrid Mass (part Luther, part Cranmer, part Catholic).
 
It is sad. In the Byzantine Catholic Rite such as Ukrainian And Greek, the Liturgy is according to St.John Chrysoustom. The Easter Gospel always contains this passage. It is a remarkable reading.
 
giuseppeTO said:
You completely miss the point of this “Protestantization” in your rush, as others on the board do, to make an apples to oranges comparison to Eastern Liturgy, as if it were the gold standard for the world.
Click to expand...
I believe I know the actual intent, but I have to say the above-quoted sentence should have ended with the word “Liturgy.” The final clause is unnecessary, (and can be read to be inflammatory), and is offensive to those of us from the East and Orient. Whether any offense was intended I don’t know (I should hope not), but the argument expressed in that clause can very readily (and quite easily) be turned right back. Just a word of caution.
 
giuseppeTO said:
You completely miss the point of this “Protestantization” in your rush, as others on the board do, to make an apples to oranges comparison to Eastern Liturgy, as if it were the gold standard for the world.

The difference, which escapes you and others, is that an advisory committee of non-Catholics influenced the formation of the Pauline Mass with the goal of coming up with a new universal Mass that Protestants could use, without holding their noses to inhale the “stink of oblation” as Luther put it, and that could be stretched into validity, surviving a deliberate mistranslation of a phrase of the Consecration (an ERROR which Pope Benedict has thankfully corrected).

There are no Protestants that use the EF … it just looks to you like the EF because it has retained more elements of the original Catholic Mass than the OF. You completely ignore the chronology of the Pauline Mass. It was not the case that the OF was promulgated and suddenly, Protestants all over the world said “WOW - what a great new modern Mass these Catholics came up with! Lets all go copy them.”

Rather, they and Bugnini collaborated to come up with the mutually pleasing (to some at least), Hybrid Mass (part Luther, part Cranmer, part Catholic).
Click to expand...
Well GiuseppeTO, it seems that once again your crystal ball is working and mine is not. Nope, I did not over look the members of Protestant Bodies that were observers at the Second Vatican Council. Nor did I overlook those observers that people looking for a conspiracy tell us were the authors of the NO. I also did not overlook, (and you did not mention) Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci in the widely circulated “Ottaviani Intervention” I only put them into proper historical context.

Let’s start with Protestants and others at a Catholic Council. It is a long standing custom to invite as Observers and as participants Protestants. Partiicpation only in the sense that when a Catholic has defected from the Faith, like Dr. Martin Luther, they are invited, with the promise of protection from harm both on the way to and from the Council to explain their position. (Even though Luther refused, he still had the invitation by the Council of Trent) there were also other Protestants who were invited, the mind of the Church is the hope that seeing the Church in daylight they may soften their hearts and come into the fullness of the Truth. As to the Ottaviani Intervention, it is marketed as a tool to defame the Pauline Mass. The reality is the Missal of Pope Paul VI is not the same draft copy as the good Cardinals objected to. But a previous draft. Pope Paul VI, like it or not, considered the document the Cardinals submitted, implemented some of the changes that were suggested, and authorized the Missal. What others have done to it may require corrections, (Which Pope John Paul II tried to implement, but many ignored) So I find the charges that the Pauline Mass was created by Protestants to make the Church Protestant and acceptable to them bunk. Does it mean I like the Pauline Missal, no. Does the Pauline Missal conform to Sacramentaries that existed prior to Pope Gregory the Great, yes. Does the Pauline Missal also contain other aspects of Non-Roman, Latin Rites, including the Ambrosian, Sarum and Gallican Rites, yes.

Nobody here has held the Eastern Rites up as a Gold Standard, you are just using red herrings. The Eastern Rite Liturgys are used as an example that one does not have to follow the text of the Pian Missal and hold it to be the only Catholic Standard. It was and is in the West from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great one of the dominant Missals, but until Trent, far from the only Missal. There was more diversity in Liturgics in the West than the East. I’d reccomend you find copies of Archdale Kings, Liturgies of the Religious Orders, Liturgies of the Past, and Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, as well as the Liturgy of the Roman Rite. Before you balk, they were all published prior to Vatican II, and were treated as the Gold Standard at Econe and Ridgefield and now Winnona. You will see there how many different Liturgies we once had in the West.

As to Protestants who you claim don’t use the EF, there are a number of “Traditionalist” Anglicans who use the old “English Missal” in the USA the “American Missal” sometimes you will hear it referred to among Roman Catholic Traditionalists as the Knox Missal, although it is really the Knott Missal. It is a direct English translation of the old Roman Missal, (Missale Romanum) down to the Vesting prayers, blessing of Holy Water, and rubrics from the old Altar Missa. I know several Anglican Churches who use them, and while when you go into the parish you would think it was a SSPX Chapel until you here the liturgy in English, and the “priest” invites anyone who is baptized in any denomination to come to the altar rail and receive communion, you would not know. The theology of these places runs from nearly identical with Rome (pre and post Vatican II depending on the parish) and a mish mash of various protestant theologies. There are a few Lutheran groups who use it too, mostly Swedish Lutherans, and a few Lutheran Monastic Orders. From maniple to Marian Devotions you’d think you were transported back before the council until you started discussing theology with them.
 
Filioque said:
The Eastern Rite Liturgys are used as an example that one does not have to follow the text of the Pian Missal and hold it to be the only Catholic Standard. It was and is in the West from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great one of the dominant Missals, but until Trent, far from the only Missal.
Click to expand...
Even after Trent. The Ambrosian, Bragan, and Mozarabic Rites still survive. (The Lyonaise variant of the Gallican also survived Trent but I’m not sure if it survived the OF.) And of course the Dominican, Carthusian, and Cistercian Rites also survive. (There’s also the Carmelite Rite which is in what I’ll call “suspended animation” but is still officially on the books. The Praemonstratentian Rite survived Trent but was abandoned shortly thereafter by General Chapter of the Order. It’s not likely to happen, but in theory, at least, it could be revived the same way.)
 
Malphono:

Thanks for the addendum, my fingers were trying to catch up with what’s left of my brain.

Yes even today, you will find the Dominican, and Cistersian rites offered, as well as others. The Archdale King books have been re-printed by a couple of different publishers. One of the advantages King had was that he was able to review some sources prior to their damaged or destroyed by WWII. Dom Ildefonso Schuster, (the late Cardinal Archbishop of Milan) and his multivolume “Sacramentary” is another wonderful set to read the development of Western Rite Litugy. And nobody would want to miss the works of Dom Garanger. While the SSPX when I was a seminarian condemned to the flames Dr. Pius Parch, I have never found anything unorthodox in his works, but he does mention works from the early Church that show how ancient many of the prayers of the OF really are, so we would not want to read anything that supports historical accuracy.

As to the Anglican Missal, see this link. You can read through the pages with a mouse click from page 1 to the end. I’ll look for an online version of the Knott edition which aside from English is a near exact duplicate of the missale Romanum. The only real difference in the Knott I have and the various editions of the Missale Romanum I have (from the 1640’s to the current Missal, is that it has a choice of three Canons, and the Roman Canon, (including the commemoration of the Pope.) archive.org/stream/anglicanmissal00churuoft#page/n523/mode/2up

Until I find an online edition of the Knott Missal, here is an Ad from the folks who recently reprintied it and the Anglican Ritual, (an almost exact reproduction of the old Rituale Romanum, from the Pre-Vatcan II ritual into English for Anglicans who want as many say “All the Ritual and half the dogma” or “All the ritual and half the guilt” (I as a Roman Catholic don’t endorse their views. I also know a few who are more Roman than many Roman Modern or Traditionalists.)

***Entirely in English, possibly with the exception of the 1933 Knott edition where the Canon of the Mass (Canon Missae) is also shown in Latin, it is almost entirely based on the Roman Missal of Pope Pius V as edited up until the time of Pope Pius X, with the exception that the lessons for all the Sundays of the year and certain feast days are taken from the Book of Common Prayer, which in turn are taken from the earlier Sarum Use Mass of pre-Reformation England. (The lessons from the Roman Missal for these days are confined to an appendix.)

It also includes options to use certain prayers in the Ordinary of the Mass taken from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. In addition it includes the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Holy Week. The English Missal went through five editions, two of which include the revised Roman Catholic Holy Week of 1958, as well as one American edition that conforms to the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The English Missal has recently been reprinted by Canterbury Press.***
 
\You completely miss the point of this “Protestantization” in your rush, as others on the board do, to make an apples to oranges comparison to Eastern Liturgy, as if it were the gold standard for the world.\

**But it IS! You mean you actually think it isn’t? :confused:

(Don’t you hate your unarticulated assumption that the Extraordinary Form is the gold standard for the world challenged?)**

||There are no Protestants that use the EF||

Apparently, you’ve never heard of old-fashioned extreme Anglo-Catholics (mostly in England)–members of the C of E–who use the EF in either English, Latin, or a mixture.
 
giuseppeTO said:
The difference, which escapes you and others, is that an advisory committee of non-Catholics influenced the formation of the Pauline Mass with the goal of coming up with a new universal Mass that Protestants could use, without holding their noses to inhale the “stink of oblation” as Luther put it…
Click to expand...
It’s a very common idea and widely repeated but the truth is that if one actually goes to examine the schemas, you’d find that the changes that most object to were done before it was the Protestant observers were even invited. It is not surprising if you look at previous or period works written by people who sat on the various commissions, since many of the reforms proceeded along their ideas. The Cranmer-Luther idea is very often repeated, but really often it consists solely in looking at a “he-removed-this-you-removed-that” which actually does not prove anything. If one looks at the stated reasons given - and there are copiously footnoted explanations for most of the changes, accompanying all the draft schemas-- they are quite clear as to what the idea is is removing such-and-such or changing such as such.
 
Geremia said:
Yes, as this shows.
Click to expand...
And that list is somewhat specious and several of items can easily be removed through the same logic by which they were inserted, Half of the items consist of no more than looking at a change and then twisting it to fit some similar change or imagined mindset . Some of the logic is tortuous - for example, realizing that the Secrets disprove the “no sacrifice” theory, the author switches to the “they-only-wanted-an-ecumenical-Ordinary” argument, or when confronted by prayers showing the Real Presence resorts to the “well-they-only-wanted-to-remove-the-sacrifical-language” argument. Then again, one might question what is the high significance of the omission of “consecratio”, or whether the change from “mea” to “nostra” in the prayer for peace really blurs the distinction between the priest and layperson.
 
AJV said:
a “he-removed-this-you-removed-that” …] actually does not prove anything.
Click to expand...
It is true that correlation does not always imply causation, but what difference does it make if the Protestants caused the Novus Ordo to be more Protestant-like or not, or if the Vatican II liturgical reformers actually intended it to be more Protestant-like or not. That does not take away from the fact that the Novus Ordo is still closer in form to a Protestant “mass” or Freemason lodge meeting than is the Catholic Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
 
bpbasilphx said:
And this site has a definite point of view and an axe to grind.
Click to expand...
I was not quoting the site, just the article on that site; I am sure I could find that Michael Davies article quoted elsewhere. I have not seen anything else on that site besides the article by Michael Davies.
 
Geremia said:
It is true that correlation does not always imply causation, but what difference does it make if the Protestants caused the Novus Ordo to be more Protestant-like or not, or if the Vatican II liturgical reformers actually intended it to be more Protestant-like or not. That does not take away from the fact that the Novus Ordo is still closer in form to a Protestant “mass” or Freemason lodge meeting than is the Catholic Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
Because (a) that calls into question the assertion that it is Protestant (b) such a blanket statement ignores many changes(some quite drastic) that the mainline Protestant denominations themselves have gone themselves through. I sometimes wonder whether people (not you) understand that. It’s easier to group all the Protestant into one big happy bag, stick a label on it that says “Protestant: heresy” and then claim that the NO is Protestant but as you know, things are more complex than that. Their praxis and theology have certainly not remianed the same over the centuries. To take one of my favourite denominations, the TEC (or formerly the PECUSA) - they now admit prayers for the dead, have revised many expressions in the Prayer Book that could give good credence to the real presence, have supplied a form of auricular (non obligatory) confession that is very similar to pre-Vatican II rituals, etc. They have even retained/introduced collects and propers from the Traditional missal removed in the NO.
 
thistle said:
Please stop that nonsense.
Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish.
Click to expand...
How can you do that?? How can you call another’s thoughts “nonsense & rubbish”?
Maybe, YOU can give an answer as to why Bugnini & his committee took the Last Gospel
gospel out of the Mass. It’s basically a Creed & one of my 3 favorite parts if the Mass.

“He was in the world, & the world was made by Him, & the world knew Him not. He came unto His Own & His Own knew Him not”…a fantastic part of the TLM. Why would that have been stricken from the Mass. I’ve often wondered that myself??

I’ve thought that maybe the committee thought that it was offensive to the Jews. However, when you read the WHOLE of John’s gospel, it seems harmless enough to me???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top