Was the Novus Ordo Missae really

Completely fabricated by Fr. Annibale Bugnini and six protestant advisors?

I hear this alot but I never could get clarification as to whether or not this is truth, falsehood, or somewhere in the middle.

What’s your take? And what do I do if I have increasing negative feelings about the Novus Ordo Mass? Like, after reading quite a bit I feel that it appears to be very watered down from what the Mass is supposed to be, and even to the point of being invalid as per the Council of Trent’s instruction as to what the Mass is, and what it can never be. And I have little doubt that Protestantism had a significant impact on our Church on or around Vatican II, whether it was the document of the “spirit” I don’t care it happened clearly, I feel a bit split now.

I will add that I’ve been in a spiritually dry area for quite a bit and have been praying without ceasing for God to lead me where to go. Is it possible I’m being lead away from the Novus Ordo Mass as an answer to my prayers?

Thanks for any input…

Reform or Revolt: The Mass of Pope Paul VI

Simply, no.

I’m reading Windswept House. Rumor is that while this is fiction, it has many true parts (one just doesn’t know which is which).

People with egos who thought they could improve on perfect wrote it.

Only time will tell if they were right.

I am a convert way after V2 and while I have no definitive answer to your question, there are many elements of protestant services in the NO. Even though I know I am at a Catholic Mass sometimes it seems like a Protestant service.

Doesn’t the phrase “completely fabricated” tell you enough?

If one takes exception to the way the Novus Ordo is celebrated by some, why does to mean it was "completely fabricated’?

For that matter, one could claim the TR rite was “completely fabricated” - it’s origins are more ancient, and more obscure. What makes it’s form “more pure”? Age?

This is always and only and issue of Authority. You don’t have to “like” the way the Novus Ordo is “celebrated” (a VatII term, I will add). It is the vernacular Mass of the One, Holy, Apolstolic, Catholic Church.

You can go to a Latin Mass if you like, it is not illicit. If that expression of the Sacrifice of the Mass suits your tastes, then go and enjoy it!

It doesn’t mean the NO is “bad” or “wrong”.

I have been to both, and I prefer a reverent Holy Mass in a language I understand - spoken clearly and without affectation.

The Latin Mass, in a sense, is more subject to abuse by lackadasical practice - rushed Latin annunciation, incorrect postures and practices - because the attendees wouldn’t know any different. Is it “more beautiful”, sometimes yes, and sometimes it is just a jumble of words and actions in a format and language foreign to the believer.

It’s antiquity doesn’t make it “more valid” or “more beautiful”, it only makes it “more ancient”, and thus perhaps more connected to the roots of the faith. It’s shortcomings, let us remember, were that few of the people in the pews were practicing “active participation” in the Mass. Praying the rosary during the Mass, reading other things during the Mass, all these were common practices at the time Vatican II was called.

There were serious liturgical and pastoral reasons for the promlugation of the Novus Ordo Mass. These are not often discussed these days…

So how did the Novus Ordo Mass come about? If it was just Fr. Annibale Bugnini and a group of Protestants (why did heretics have anything to do with the new Mass anyway? They shouldn’t even have been at the council let alone advising on the new Mass.) concocting a new Mass wouldn’t "completely fabricated be accurate? This isn’t really a topic on the problems with the Traditional Latin Mass, but where the Novus Ordo came from.

To suggest abuse was as rampant and occurs with as much frequency in the TLM as the Novus Ordo I think is really out there. There’s simply no way that’s possible.

WOW I didn’t know the Synod of Bishops rejected the Novus Ordo Missae in 1967. It’s too scary to think one guy and six protestants are directly responsible for the Mass we celebrate today. While inconceivable and frightening it appears to be the case from what I’ve seen and I admit I’m no expert. But the video does appear that the Novus Ordo Missae has been in the works since Luther.

I loved how he showed how his new Parish Church with its removed crucifix, wooden altar table, no statues or icons etc… was built two full years before Pope Paul VI’s New Mass, and even while it was being rejected by the Synod of Bishops. Why would a Church be built that way while the Synod of Bishops were rejecting the Novus Ordo Missae?

Eye opening video and scary.

I always wondered why the Mass had to be changed. Why fix something that was not broke?

I have lived in two other different continents besides the US. Never mind that in the past the Mass was said in Latin and non-Cs were fond and liked to make fun of it, the ones attending did not mind it a bit. Sunday Masses I used to attend were always packed.

Due to circumstances, for a few years during the switch, I was not able to go to Mass. It was almost like a culture shock when I began to attend Mass again. Before I got used to the changes of the NO Mass, I felt I was in a gym. Stand, kneel, sit, stand, sit, kneel, stand, kneel. I don’t remember yo-yo-ing up and down so much as we do now during Mass. But who knows? The architects of the NO and the ones that are still involved in making changes in the Mass probably think it is all is very meaningful. This last word I consider a typical NO expression. Nowadays that word is often used when explaining or justifying changes.

I think the handshake is a superficial gesture. It really does not add anything to the solemnity of what just happened on the altar. It’s almost like a diversion. OTOH, I know others consider the handshake a “meaningful” (there’s that word, again) gesture and enjoy the hand shake. Even my husband who says he is Protestant, but goes to Mass with me, does not like that part of the Mass.

The constant singing and the instructions given for a next song during distribution of Holy Communion I consider a distraction. I know many don’t mind. I think it’s harder to concentrate, reflect and pray. The time allotted after the distribution is barely enough time for that.

Oh well, I should not complain so much. I have often thought who am I? Jesus allowed the changes to be made, I should go along. I wonder if He sometimes laughs or just shakes his head while observing some of the antics during Mass. I am glad our Archdiocese dropped the hand holding during the Our Father. We now raise our hands palms up, and then raise our hands somewhat higher at the end of the Our Father.

End of rant. :slight_smile:

Remember firstly that Protestants were invited to Trent too - in fact the initial aim of Trent was to iron out the differences between Prots and Catholics, until some of the Prots refused to attend, which sunk those hopes.

Then remember that one guy and 12 Jews celebrated the first Mass, if I remember correctly :wink:

And plenty of Catholic churches built in the late 50s and early 60s were veering towards ‘noble’ or ‘bland’ (depending on your tastes) simplicity already - as were plenty of other buildings such as schools, offices and houses too. Well before any real consideration of any change to the Mass. It’s a little thing called shifting tastes.

Actually it wasn’t one guy as you call him and 12 Jews. It was 13 Jews, one of whom was both man and God.

A Change in architecture doesn’t account for the wooden altar, no crucifix and every other uniquely Vatican II innovation seperate from building architecture of the housing building. It is odd that in a few short years Church architecture and liturgy that was essentially unchanged for 1,500 years was tossed in lieu of church architecture and liturgy that is unmistakably protestant.

The Protestants at Trent I’m 100% positive were not advising on the Tridentine Mass too so the comparison is not a good one.

The Church created a “consillium” of which the head was Archbishop Anibale Bugnini RIP+. They had attached to the consillium six Protestant Ministers who were there “officialy” as “observers”. According to the late Michael Davies, Archbishop Bugnini is quoted to have said that the six Protestants were actively involved with all discussions concerning the reform of the Liturgy. When the first version of the New Mass was created even Paul VI rejected it due to the total elimination of any mention of sacrifice. It took a long time to concoct the NOM, trial and error and then finally a version that the Pope would eventually accept…even though the synod of Bishops overwhelmingly rejected it.

And when you see what happened to Archbishop Bugnini… I mean the Pope really must have been upset with what he had done because afterwards he was banished to Iran- the land of the Ayatollah Khomeni.


I’ve been asking for months to people who made the comment: what prayers of the Mass did the 6 Protestants suggest be eliminated or introduced. So far, no one has answered. There is only one time I remember when someone (AlexV) addressed it with regard to the Traditional lectionary noting how the Protestants wanted it retained (it wasn’t).

They shouldn’t even have been at the council

Just a little historical point…They’ve been at every council from Trent onward. If you look at the documents of Trent you will find one giving them safe passage.

How about the Holy Pontiff, First among Equals, and supreme leader of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, promlugted it! Would you prefer to claim being better equiped to know the will of the Holy Spirit for the Church than the Holy Father?

If it was just Fr. Annibale Bugnini and a group of Protestants (why did heretics have anything to do with the new Mass anyway? They shouldn’t even have been at the council let alone advising on the new Mass.) concocting a new Mass wouldn’t "completely fabricated be accurate?

If “IFS” & “BUTS” were candy and nuts, it’ld be Christmas every day!

To suggest abuse was as rampant and occurs with as much frequency in the TLM as the Novus Ordo I think is really out there. There’s simply no way that’s possible.

How amusing. Are you claiming that celebration of the TLM is so powerfully holy that the very participants and celebrants are kept from straying into any abuse?

Firstly - architectural styles DOES help account for part of the difference.

Look at the difference, for example, betwen Tara-from-Gone-with-the-Wind-type neoclassical grandeur in the stately homes of the rich before the modernist era and compare it with any grand home built after the 60s (today’s multi-million-dollar celebrity McMansions for example). Beautiful v ugly ugly ugly and plain plain plain.

Go to New York and again compare anything built after the 60s (World Trade Centre? - impressive but ONLY for its size) with the gorgeous Chrysler Building or the elegant Rockefeller Centre or Empire State. Again, beauty and tasteful ornamentation v plain functionality.

Same with churches! It’s been pointed out in another thread that Protestant churches SIMILARLY stripped down and ‘modernised’ their style in architecture and decoration in the 50s and 60s. Clearly this wasn’t due to any desire to make a particular philosophical point - they weren’t undergoing changes in liturgy like we Catholics were!

As for Trent - as I said the council was called originally with the specific intent of negotiating with all of Europe’s Protestant powers and ironing out the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism! It was intended to be a conference between adversaries, not just the Church laying down its law as it turned out. And it would have been a different creature if a huge proportion of the Protestants who were invited hadn’t boycotted it.

I always use the National Enquirer method. If a story sounds stranger than anything on the front of the Enquirer this week, I discount it. It’s my own version of Occam’s Razor and a great time saver on the internet. The Bugnini story in its best telling is right up there with Tom Cruise being a child of an alien and bigfoot.

Or you could use the Jack Chick method. If it sounds weirder than his Illuminati/ Rivera/ Jesuit conspiracy, discount it.

The Enquirer did keep the OJ Simpson story on task, broke the Monica Lewinsky story and Jesse Jackson’s Love child but I see what you mean.
In Windswept House, the Satanists in the Curia may be pretty wacked out, but the Vatican politics seem just about what they should be.

As far as I know Pope Paul VI had nothing to do with writing it, as far as promulgating it, well the Synod of Bishop’s overwhelmingly rejected it, perhaps the Holy Spirit was suffering an identity crisis?

Nonsense, I have no cluse what that means other than to be argumentative…

If you compare abuses at the TLM, and abuses at the Novus Ordo there may be a very good case for that.

Why does it carry his name? Do you really think he okay’d the Mass and didn’t even know it?

You’re not one of those who think Pope Paul VI was replaced with a double, are you??

If you compare abuses at the TLM, and abuses at the Novus Ordo there may be a very good case for that.

So, you have statistics for this? ALL the TLM Masses said at this time are free of “abuse”? Is this ridiculous claim verifiable?

Perhaps you have discovered that “secret”…you know the one…there was a very orthodox bishop who discovered it, but was punished by the Curia. He discovered the secret documents the PROVE God created the TLM only so that the impeccable could get their sactification via rote response, and not have to mess with that conversion of heart thing. Come to think of it, many of my contacts with TLM affectionados reflects that “arrived” kind of piety - free of the contraints of humility and love of neighbor that calls out a sense of hope in the Mercy of God for even those who don’t “deserve” it…

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.