Protestant advisors to the liturgical reform

What about the Protestants advisors who helped Bugnini et altri to create the NOM? Is it a traditionalist myth or is it the truth?

Yes. This is one of the saddest facts of VII. A fact of history that no neo-conservative apologist can refute. They were not only there at the meeting, they were listened to and, indeed, contributed to creation of the N.O. :eek:

If possible, read this book, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber”. It has an imprimatur and nihil obstat. It will help you to understand how the council reforms made way for the reform of the Latin Rite mass…

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/26/

Somewhere I read a quote from the Vatican, following the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, that stated that the protestants were there as observers, not “advisors”. I can’t remember where I saw this quote. Anyone else know about this?

"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 Protestants.”
(Archbishop Bugnini before the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Osservatore Romano”, March 19, 1965)

“The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimensions since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.”
(Archbishop Bugnini after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, quoted in “Notitiae”, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126)

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
(Father Joseph Gelineau, Demain la Liturgie, Paris, 1976, p. 9-10)

“They (the Protestant ministers) were 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.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

“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 (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic
Herald”, December 22, 1972)

According to Annibale’s Bugnini’s book *Reform of the Liturgy *the Protestants that attended the meetings of the Consilium that wrote the Liturgy were Anglican Canon Jasper, Reverend Massey Shepherd professor at the Church divinity School of the Pacific, Methodist Professor Raymond George, Lutheran Pastor Friedrich Kunneth, Lutheran Reverend Eugene Brand and Calvinist Frere Max Thurian of the Taize community.
Bugnini says this about the Protestants, “Their attitude at the meetings of the Consilium was one of great reserve and unobtrusiveness. They never took part in the discussions, never asked to speak.”

That statement is contradicted by Machael Davies.

*Liturgical Time Bombs *pg 77. Protestant observer Canon Ronald Jasper was interviewed by Michael Davies in 1977 and he explained that the observers received all the documents from the drafters in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They were present at the debates , but the observer were not allowed to join in the debate. In the afternoon they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the drafts and at these meetings they were allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. The informal meetings were a complete free-for-all, and there was a frank exchange of views."

Photo of the observors"

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A090rcPaulVIand%20Protsestants.htm

Reform of the Liturgy

pg 199 . “those in particular who were opposed to any reform of the Mass took advantage of the observers presence to claim that the reform of the Mass was Protestant. One of their main arguments was that Protestants had had a hand in the revision. Further grist for their mill was a photograph taken at the end of the Consilium’s work, for which the Holy Father, as a sign of fraternal good will, posed with the observers"

It was very much the hope that many of these protestant denominations would return to catholicism during Vatican II. Pope John XXIII thought it was a good possibility that they might come back to the Church. It was very much an effort to restate the truths of the Faith in such a way where the protestants might come back. It’s hard for us to imagine now, but in 1962 it was thought to be a possibility.

Could you then please tell us what exactly they did? What prayers did the contribute to, or not, etc.? A fact of history that I’ve seen no proponent address. Nor has it it been done so on this thread.

Sorry, as I said in a thread recently, this quote is highly inaccurate bordering on false.

“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 (Novus Ordo Missae).”

Yes. Very little. One just happens to pray “we bring before you this bread and this cup and we pray you to accept this our duty and service a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” “Send the Holy Spirit on your people …all who share in this one bread and one cup”. The other happens to actually offer the “Bread of Life” and “Cup of salvation” (Eucharistic terms from the roman Canon) and pray that unity may be achieved in achieved by all “who share in the body and Blood of Christ”.

Look at the Tridentine Mass- then look at the Novus Ordo, then look at Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist Sunday services.

It is obvious. Even a Protestant Minister convert, on EWTN’s show “The Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi quoted a caller to his rectory who said in 1970 after the Novus Ordo Mass came into being, “Look!!! They stole our liturgy!”

Ken

A few thousand pounds would get you the Acta of the Council :slight_smile: - in Latin :slight_smile:

Where else you could look, I don’t know. :slight_smile:

I don’t see why it so bad that they should have influenced the Liturgy - editions of the Bible & the Fathers are no less the result of ecumenical scholarship; liturgical scholarship has been ecumenical for a long time: so why is it so terrible that our brethren in Christ should be present in person ? How is that different from reading their works, researches, essays ? Many Anglicans & others are learned in such matters - so by all means let us benefit from their scholarship.

Can you post the actual quote, then? I’m unable to find anything that contradicts it on the internet. Are you saying that he didn’t say that, but said something else (ex, poor translation into English) or that someone did say it, but it wasn’t Bugnini?

thanks

Found the answer in a post from 2005 in the CA forum, actually.

askfactmaster.com/Novus_Ordo

Critics falsely attribute to Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the body that Pope Paul VI set up to implement the Second Vatican Council’s decree on the liturgy, the statement: “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 Protestants”, and claim that this was published on L’Osservatore Romano of 19 March 1965.

The bad-faith attribution to Father Bugnini of these words is evident, when they are compared with what he actually wrote on that issue of L’Osservatore Romano: “Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices” (page 6, column 4).

The sacrifices that Father Bugnini felt were painful to make concerned some familiar words omitted from one particular prayer in the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer, previously titled “For the unity of the Church”, is now headed “For the unity of Christians” (the Church is always one). Instead of “heretics” and “schismatics”, it now speaks of “all our brethren who believe in Jesus Christ” and asks “that God may gather and keep together in his one Church all those who seek the truth in sincerity.”

These words are still VERY troublesome. As if the Liturgy of the Holy Mass had any impediments. Who cares if we offend people, particularly non-Catholics? Our Lord said things that people reacted horribly to all the time. He was accused of blasphemy and crucified for it, even tho’ He never spoke anything but the Truth. I would be more concerned about offending Our Lord in changing what Tradition has passed onto us. To boot, there hasn’t been the conversions that were suppose to happen with all the changes. Non-Catholics haven’t entered the Church in droves, but there have been droves of Catholics leaving the Church.

This reminds me of how Our Dear Lord’s words were changed in the Divine Mercy Chaplet:

ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm#5

*"Today bring to Me those who do not believe in God and those who do not know Me,

***Our Lord’s original words here were “the pagans.” **

"Today bring to Me the Souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church*,

***Our Lord’s original words here were “heretics and schismatics,” ***

I believe Our Lord used these specific words because theologically, they are accurate.

He is not speaking of the Mass. He is speaking of the Holy Week, specifically the 7th oration and it only makes sense if you read it in the article. I’m not sure how exact the translation BenFischer supplied (thanks, I didn’t know one was online :thumbsup: ) is in some areas - specifically the area you highlighted- so the Italian of this is:

L’ orazione 7a reca il titolo: «Per l’unità dei cristiani» (non «della Chiesa»), che è stata sempre una). Non si parla più di «eretici» e «scismatici», ma di «tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo». Il testo completo dice:

Preghiamo per tutti i fratelli che credono in Cristo: – O Signore Dio nostro, concede che essi, – seguendo la verità, – siano riuniti e custoditi nell’unica tua Chiesa…(the text of the prayer)

…Come non rimpiangere per esempio quel .(phrase from prayer)… 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 lontamente un inciampo o motivo di disagio, hanno indotto la Chiesa anche a quei penosi sacrifici.

It seems to be more like “by removing the stone[impediment] that can cause…”

It is impossible to deny that protestants were there. So I got myself out of the USA and into the Malankara rite in India where the protestants cannot get in. That is thanks to Pius XI.

It is still a Catholic liturgical prayer that is offered in the most solemn liturgy of all, Good Friday. Honestly, the quote isn’t very clear what he is referring to and nothing suggests he didn’t make two separate comments.

I still say there wasn’t an impediment.

Actually there is. I was feeling a bit lazy :o so I omitted quoting the part he quoted in Latin which is from the introduction to the 1962-and-before Good Friday prayer for heretics and schismatics and replaced it with “(phrase from prayer)” I also edited the bits of thoroughly useless pious sentiment that was along the lines of we-felt-this-great-burden-of-history-changing-something-so-venerable blah blah.

I still say there wasn’t an impediment.

There, at least, I can agree with you, more or less.

Here he is speaking of the Latin Mass, which he wanted to get rid of. From his book* Reform of the Liturgy* in his words.

Pg114 “But how difficult it is to take an ancient building in hand and make it functional and habitable without changing the structure. Peripheral alterations are not enough; there had to be a radical restoration”
Pg 44 “Signs and rites are likely to become incrusted by time, that is, to grow old and outmoded. They may therefore need to be revised and updated, so that the expression of the Church’s worship may reflect the perennial youthfulness of the Church itself…the Liturgy feeds the Church’s life; it must therefore remain dynamic and not be allowed to stagnate or become petrified “

Here he claims the TLM was abrogated.
Pg 299 “ On August 31 , 1973, Monsignor Sustar…insisted on a statement being issued as to whether the Mass of Pius V was unconditionally prohibited. After a new study of the question, it was decided that a response would be opportune…. On October 17, 1973, the secretary of the Congregation {Annibale Bugnini} explained matters to Monsignor Sustar as follows: 1. The “Missal of Pius V” was definitely abrogated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum. One need only read the final paragraph.”

Pg 110 “ It cannot be denied that the principle, approved by the Council, of using the vernaculars was given a broad interpretation”

His idea of “active participation”.

Pg 209 Footnote 11. “The use of things mechanical also make headlines at the beginning of the liturgical reform…the “offertory machine” at Ferrara. This was a machine that allowed the faithful to make a host drop untouched into baskets, which were then taken to the altar at the time of the offertory. It was a clever way of letting the people express their participation and of consecration as many hosts as would be needed at the celebration, while at the same time safeguarding hygiene. But some journalists discovered the ingenious device and spread word of it; in the process, however, they misrepresented its function and spoke of it as though it were a machine for the automatic distribution of communion. Here again the Consilium had to intervene; it dealt with the matter in general terms in a short piece entitled “Mechanique et liturgie.”

I can see that and I certainly don’t doubt that what with his “spirit and truth” stuff, but how does this relate to the Protestants or what input they gave?

As Pope Benedict XVI wrote (I’d give you the exact phrase but I’ve lent Dom Reid’s book and will get it back only in two weeks) the first generation of ‘reformers’ were mainly “archaeological enthusiasts” and historians. All the quotes you provided are fully compatible with that- which was a phenomena that showed signs in the 50’s itself.

(And frankly, I’m ambivalent about the ‘offertory machine’. Not a great idea, but I wouldn’t run screaming from my church if I saw one)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.