Why No Last Gospel in N.O. Mass?

[bpbasilphx]

\How can you do that?? How can you call another’s thoughts “nonsense & rubbish”?\

And do you realize that this is EXACTLY what you are doing to this person–saying the post is “nonsense and rubbish”? How can YOU do that?

\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. \

**And is this the same poster who started a long thread saying the Western mitre is derived from the “fish hat” of paganism, even though they were CENTURIES apart? I think this says plenty about your liturgical scholarship.

As I pointed out earlier, the Last Gospel (which was not always John 1) was originally a sacristy devotion.**

 

[Filioque]

I’ve heard over and over about the Commission of Protestants, and about Mgr. Later Abp. Bugnini being a Secret Mason with the intent of destruction of the Mass. What I’ve never seen is any proof of these charges. There are even those who would have you believe that Abp. Bugnini’s assignment in his last days was to remove and punish him. However the post of Papal Nuncio is not one given to someone who you would want to shame. As to the Masonic “rumors” an arch-conservative, Cardinal Silvio Oddi was quoted as commenting: “I can swear that [Bugnini] was not a Freemason… I remain convinced that these accusations were made up by someone in his office… who wanted to eliminate him”. It is easy to attack a dead man, and defame him, notwithstnding the proscription against it among the Ten Commandments. But once again we have to ask. Regardless of the unfounded charges, did the Pope (Paul VI) approve the OF? Yes. Did Pope John XXIII authorize other modifications to the EF Missal? Yes. Did Pope Pius XII do the same? Yes. How about Pope St. Pius X before him? Yes. The EF was modified and rubrics changed by any number of Popes after it was promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. Pope Paul VI had every right to issue a Missal of any Rite he saw fit.

Yes the Vatican freely admits that there were Protestants present both in a separate area from the Council Fathers and the Experts like (then) Fr. Ratzinger, Fr. Bouyer, and others who were seen as liberal in their time, but turned out to become some of the most conservative voices in the Church. Many, (not all) of those who clammored for change, saw not that the change was wrong, as much as the way it was mis-implemented by some bishops was wrong. While these Protestant Observers may have been present and even spoken with the Commission who looked at the liturgy. (Little insight, Pope St. Pius V did not edit the Missal himself, it was reviewed by a commission and then approved by him.) There seems to be no authentic support that these Protestants were officially members of the commission, nor had a vote in what would be promulgated.

Just because something is not offensive to a Protestant does not make it non-Catholic.

 

[malphono]

If one looks at its placement, after the dismissal and the final blessing, it’s more than clear that the Last Gospel was not originally an integral part of the Mass. Further to my earlier post,[post=6056183]post[/post], it was originally a “sacristy devotion” that “crept in” to the public liturgy. (In that respect it’s similar to the “second Confiteor” which was finally removed by Bl PP John XXIII. To my trained eye, neither should have been in the Missal in the first place.)

In any case, the Last Gospel is one thing that I can safely say was not removed because of any particular agenda, whether of Bugnini (and no, I am not one of his fans by any stretch of the imagination), Protestants, Jews, Masons, Martians, or anyone else.

 

[japhy]

the goal was to prostentanize the mass to make it more appealing to them. Bugnini even said “we must strip out from our mass anything that may be a roadblock for them to convert”.

That’s not what he said. People should stop misquoting him.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Paul VI had every right to issue a Missal of any Rite he saw fit.

It is a little disingenuous to the Novus Ordo to say this. I doubt if God gave him the right to do as he pleases. Whatever Pope Paul VI was, he wasn’t a tyrant saying “Take this Mass or your head comes off.” As I’ve stated many times, in spite of the Trent decree that no new rites were to be formed, the promulgation of the Novus Ordo was necessary to break the turmoil of different liturgies formed right after Vatican II. Whether Bugnini or half the Cardinals were Masons or not is irrelevant.

 

[Filioque]

It is a little disingenuous to the Novus Ordo to say this. I doubt if God gave him the right to do as he pleases. Whatever Pope Paul VI was, he wasn’t a tyrant saying “Take this Mass or your head comes off.” As I’ve stated many times, in spite of the Trent decree that no new rites were to be formed, the promulgation of the Novus Ordo was necessary to break the turmoil of different liturgies formed right after Vatican II. Whether Bugnini or half the Cardinals were Masons or not is irrelevant.

It would be a leap to say that I was promoting that the Pope can whatever he pleases. The matter is that the Pope has the authority to promulgate a Catholic Liturgy. The Missal or Pope Paul VI is a Catholic Liturgy. It may not reflect my personal taste in Liturgics, but I don’t have the authority to promulgate another, nor to supress a rite I don’t like. What he did was lawful, and having read various sides of the arguments, I have found that on both extremes there are distorted arguments. One side dismisses the EF as something better left to the Middle Ages. The other extreme rejects the OF as non-Catholic, a product of secret Masons, Marranos and others out to destroy the Church.

From my reading, I find that the OF like any of the approved Rites of the Church is a legitimate Rite. The OF is a valid Rite. The OF is a Rite that was properly promulgated by a competent authority of the Church.

A careful read of my original posting will reveal that I was addressing those who attempt to defame Abp. Bugnini. I even included the quote from Cardinal Oddi who is a champion of arch-conservatives, and himself debunked the Masonic myths that some try to use in order to slander the late Archbishop. Nope I don’t like the New Rites, but I will assist at them if nothing else is availible, why, it is not for me to promulgate a Rite, and it is a valid, and licit rite of the Church. The spiritual value of a Low Mass in the OF is equal to a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the EF celebrated by the Pope at the main altar of St. Peters. Why because it is in both places the Mass, and Jesus Himself is the priest and victim in both.

 

[iluvburpees]

The matter is that the Pope has the authority to promulgate a Catholic Liturgy. The Missal or Pope Paul VI is a Catholic Liturgy. It may not reflect my personal taste in Liturgies…"

What reflects your “personal taste in liturgies” is completely irrelevant. All that matters is whether the changes are good or bad. And the fact is that they were bad. Did you know that Bugnini said in his own CSL that “There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms should in some way grow organically from forms already existing”? Tell me why the good of the church “genuinely and certainly” required the deletion of the Suscipe, sancte Pater and the Suscipe, sancte Trinitas, and the replacing of the beautiful Deus, qui humanae substantiae, Offerimus tibi, Domine, and Lavabo prayers with much shorter, doctrinally empty, and non-sacrificial prayers?

The OF is a Rite that was properly promulgated by a competent authority of the Church.

Do you actually think these liberals reformers were competent to do anything positive for the Church? I honestly cannot believe that you could say this.

It seems like many Novus Ordo Catholics have no idea whatsoever as to what really happened at VII. There were so many oddities that are completely relevant to it and cannot be ignored just because “the pope is the pope and he can do what he wishes with the Liturgy because he is the pope.”

 

[ProVobis]

The matter is that the Pope has the authority to promulgate a Catholic Liturgy.

So you’re saying that there are absolutely no limitations to what the Pope can do in way of promulgating a liturgy?

 

[iluvburpees]

So you’re saying that there are absolutely no limitations to what the Pope can do in way of promulgating a liturgy?

On the contrary, the popes since Pope St. Gregory, 1300 years ago if I remember, have always had an incredible respect for the treasure of a Mass we have inherited, and particularly the Canon. The Liberal Reformers had no respect whatsoever for Tradition, and this is blatantly obvious with the new religion they created.

 

[CradleCath]

\How can you do that?? How can you call another’s thoughts “nonsense & rubbish”?\

And do you realize that this is EXACTLY what you are doing to this person–saying the post is “nonsense and rubbish”? How can YOU do that?

\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. \

**And is this the same poster who started a long thread saying the Western mitre is derived from the “fish hat” of paganism, even though they were CENTURIES apart? I think this says plenty about your liturgical scholarship.

As I pointed out earlier, the Last Gospel (which was not always John 1) was originally a sacristy devotion.**

To tell you the truth, I have a hard time following your train of thought at times. I have no idea about anyone who has posted about “fish hats”.

What I do know is that you’re condoning the actions of another poster, I believe it was someone named Thistle…who said:

[SIGN]Please stop that nonsense.
Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish. [/SIGN]
Now, I may disagree with another’s thoughts, I may provide a source that shows another view, I may even tell them that I believe what they said was unkind, BUT, I’ve never told another poster that their thoughts are rubbish.

I’m surprised & disappointed that you would defend something like that.

 

[Filioque]

So you’re saying that there are absolutely no limitations to what the Pope can do in way of promulgating a liturgy?

I did not say that. The Church said that.

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema. Denzinger 3064 (old numbering, 1831)

I also hold that God would not allow the promulgation of a Liturgy that was invalid, or non-Catholic. I’ve read and heard these arguments when I was in the SSPX seminary. It was reading the history of the Liturgy, from the books in the library in Econe which convinced me that the NOM was both valid and licit. It was also Abp. Lefebvre’s early days in Econe where the NOM and the Missals of 1962 and 1965 were all used, and my exposure to some of the Eastern Rite clergy that visited us, that I gained a love for all authentically Catholic Liturgies, and an understanding that in whatever Rite, the Mass from a humble grass covered hut in the poorest msssion, to a Solemn Papal Mass in the EF at St. Peter’s has the same limitless spiritual effects, as Jesus Himself is both priest and vicitm at both.

I do not find that the abuses by ultra-liberal or ultra-conservatives, nor the distortions of either side are justification for what either one does in defiance of the Vicar of Christ.

 

[bpbasilphx]

To tell you the truth, I have a hard time following your train of thought at times. I have no idea about anyone who has posted about “fish hats”.

What I do know is that you’re condoning the actions of another poster, I believe it was someone named Thistle…who said:

[SIGN]Please stop that nonsense.
Better to keep quiet than spout rubbish. [/SIGN]
Now, I may disagree with another’s thoughts, I may provide a source that shows another view, I may even tell them that I believe what they said was unkind, BUT, I’ve never told another poster that their thoughts are rubbish.

I’m surprised & disappointed that you would defend something like that.

There was someone with a name VERY similar to yours who made this post about “fish hats”. If I have you confused with this poster, I apologize.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe. Yet when you hear a credible Cardinal calling any Liturgy a “banal fabrication,” you begin to wonder, no so much as to the validity but as to possible excessive and untested liberties taken by the Pope. Just saying. As I said before, I feel Pope Paul did the best he could with what he had.

 

[pnewton]

For my “Why?” question, I can speculate that it was to Protestantize, for some odd reason, the Catholic mass since that passage in John is very Catholic.

the goal was to prostentanize the mass to make it more appealing to them

Do people even know what a Protestant is? I only ask because it makes no sense in this context. Oh, and it sounds like you are the ones protesting.

 

[pnewton]

I have no idea what is in the first Chapter of John that anyone could possibly think would offend a Protestant of any denomination. It is one of the most beloved chapters in Christendom and preached in pulpits everywhere. In Baptist seminary, it translating this passage was the first assignment of any length in Greek.

Anyone have an idea what some Catholics consider so catholic about this that it would offend others?

 

[Spirithound]

That’s not what he said. People should stop misquoting him.

Is it the case that Msgr Bugnini never said anything similar, or would you provide the correct quote please?

 

[japhy]

Is it the case that Msgr Bugnini never said anything similar, or would you provide the correct quote please?

What he said was originally in Italian:
Gli studiosi penseranno a mettere in luce le fonti bibliche e liturgiche da cui derivano o alle quali si ispirano i nuovi testi, elaborati col cesello dai Gruppi di studio del “Consilium”. E diciamo pure che non di rado il lavoro è proceduto “cum timore et tremore” nel dover sacrificare espressioni e concetti tanto cari, e ormai per la lunga consuetudine familiari. Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel “ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur” della settima orazione?

E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontanamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
The last part is translated better as: “Love for souls and the desire to facilitate in every way the road to union with our separated brothers, by removing anything that could possibly constitute an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.” The change being referred to was the change in language of the Good Friday prayers, which (as the 1962 liturgy attests to) uses the terms “heretics” and “schismatics”.

 

[AJV]

What he said was originally in Italian:
Gli studiosi penseranno a mettere in luce le fonti bibliche e liturgiche da cui derivano o alle quali si ispirano i nuovi testi, elaborati col cesello dai Gruppi di studio del “Consilium”. E diciamo pure che non di rado il lavoro è proceduto “cum timore et tremore” nel dover sacrificare espressioni e concetti tanto cari, e ormai per la lunga consuetudine familiari. Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel “ad sanctam matrem Ecclesiam catholicam atque apostolicam revocare dignetur” della settima orazione?

E tuttavia l’amore delle anime e il desiderio di agevolare in ogni modo il cammino dell’unione ai fratelli separati, rimovendo pietra che possa costituire pur lontanamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.
The last part is translated better as: “Love for souls and the desire to facilitate in every way the road to union with our separated brothers, by removing anything that could possibly constitute an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.” The change being referred to was the change in language of the Good Friday prayers, which (as the 1962 liturgy attests to) uses the terms “heretics” and “schismatics”.

If I could make a tiny corrections and give a more expanded version:

“And let us often say that the work is carried out with fear and trembling, at having to sacrifice so many expressions, loved and from a long and familiar tradition. How can we not mourn for example, the “ad sanctam…dignetur” of the seventh prayer? Yet, love for souls and the desire to help in every way the road to union with our separated brothers, by removing a stone(obstacle) that could possibly constitute an stumbling block or make them feel ill at ease, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.”

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’ve heard over and over about the Commission of Protestants, and about Mgr. Later Abp. Bugnini being a Secret Mason with the intent of destruction of the Mass. What I’ve never seen is any proof of these charges. There are even those who would have you believe that Abp. Bugnini’s assignment in his last days was to remove and punish him. However the post of Papal Nuncio is not one given to someone who you would want to shame. As to the Masonic “rumors” an arch-conservative, Cardinal Silvio Oddi was quoted as commenting: “I can swear that [Bugnini] was not a Freemason… I remain convinced that these accusations were made up by someone in his office… who wanted to eliminate him”. It is easy to attack a dead man, and defame him, notwithstnding the proscription against it among the Ten Commandments. But once again we have to ask. Regardless of the unfounded charges, did the Pope (Paul VI) approve the OF? Yes. Did Pope John XXIII authorize other modifications to the EF Missal? Yes. Did Pope Pius XII do the same? Yes. How about Pope St. Pius X before him? Yes. The EF was modified and rubrics changed by any number of Popes after it was promulgated by Pope St. Pius V. Pope Paul VI had every right to issue a Missal of any Rite he saw fit.

Yes the Vatican freely admits that there were Protestants present both in a separate area from the Council Fathers and the Experts like (then) Fr. Ratzinger, Fr. Bouyer, and others who were seen as liberal in their time, but turned out to become some of the most conservative voices in the Church. Many, (not all) of those who clammored for change, saw not that the change was wrong, as much as the way it was mis-implemented by some bishops was wrong. While these Protestant Observers may have been present and even spoken with the Commission who looked at the liturgy. (Little insight, Pope St. Pius V did not edit the Missal himself, it was reviewed by a commission and then approved by him.) There seems to be no authentic support that these Protestants were officially members of the commission, nor had a vote in what would be promulgated.

Just because something is not offensive to a Protestant does not make it non-Catholic.

Michael Davies wrote extensively on the commission and the non-Catholic participation. Check out his book “The New Mass”. As for Bugnini being a secret Mason and bent on the destruction of the Mass/Church, I have no clue, one way or the other, but I tend to look with a somewhat jaundiced eye at conspiracy theories. The Masonic vision is a one-world order and a one-world religion to support it. It certainly appears that there is a strong element present in the planning of the Novus Ordo along these lines.

Your insight on Pius V doesn’t apply. He did not authorize the creation of a new Missal. He codified, with very slight alterations, one of the prominent forms of the Latin rite. He did it for the specific purpose of combating some creeping heresies. The Novus Ordo was ‘created’ for no other purpose than to “create”. What ended up as the NOM was certainly not envisioned by the Council Fathers, both in what it deleted from the Mass in style and word, and or rubrical reconfiguration of Mass, altars, churches, vestments, etc.

 

[AJV]

Michael Davies wrote extensively on the commission and the non-Catholic participation. Check out his book “The New Mass”.

It’s a good book but I think he did not have some material from the Concilium available to him at the time he wrote it. Perhaps it could not be released at the time. I think if he had read it, he would have revised some parts of the book because in the light of those documents, some of his conclusions are clearly untenable.