FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: How is the N.O. Protestant?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
OK, so every few days are so, we engage in the eternal debate about the valitiy of the N.O.  In these threads, almost invariably, someone shows up and calls it a "Protestant Mass," citing that Protestants had a role in writing and promugating it.  What I'd like to know is what aspects of the N.O. as written (as opposed to the liturgical abuses that came in some places afterwards) are distinctly Protestant.

The reason that I ask this question is that I was raised as a Protestant, so I have more than a passing familiarity with Protestant liturgies.  Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of Protestantism in the N.O.  Then again, I might not be looking in the right places, so I'm open to being taught.

Let me be clear.  This purpose of this thread is NOT to discuss the validity of the N.O., nor is it a discussion of the various vagaries of the development of N.O., so please leave the Freemasons and conspiracies at the door.  I just want to give those of you who claim that the N.O. is a "Protestant Mass" a chance to explain your claims.
I see some.  Many of the hymns that are used in the NO Masses are also sung in some of the Protestant churches.  I find that the chatting in the Sanctuary before & after the Mass remind me of my Protestant days where everyone used the time sitting in the pew to chat with those around them.  The exchange of peace amongst everyone was in the Methodist and Baptist churches that I grew up in.  As for many of the homilies, they could be said in a Methodist church half the time.  The Baptist churches that  I grew up with are more fire and brimstone sermons, but Methodists are all about love - God loves us, we love eachother....  Rarely do you hear much preaching on anything else.  It is all tolerance and love.  (hence their slogan - "One heart, one mind, one church" - tolerant of all people and welcoming, whether they live in sinful states or not.)  I have heard someone say that the list of prayers reminds them of the Protestant church.  In the Protestant churches I grew up in, the preacher always asked if anyone had prayer requests and we spent a few minutes with people announcing their prayer requests during the service.  I guess for some, the listing of prayer requests in the NO Mass reminds them of this.  Children's time is reminiscent of the Protestant churches for me.  Oh.... and the obvious - the receiving of communion in the hands from lay people.  This is usually how it (bread and grapejuice) were often served in both the Methodist and Baptist churches that I went to.  These are my observations - I am sure there are many more and that many have had very different experiences.
I suggest the reading of Michael Davies. book:  Liturgical Revolution: Cranmer's Godly Order for the answer and explanation on that one.

The so called "novus ordo" (new order) was not new at all.  Well, maybe for most Catholics it was.  But the essence of it came out of the Anglican revolt of the 16th century and from the Book of Common Prayer.  It was tweaked and some words changed for the consecration and so on but it came to us from protestantism.

In no way do I indicate it is invalid.  It is valid. But the roots of it came from protestantism and not the orgainic development within the Catholic church.

Someone is free to correct me if I am in error on this source.
Chapter XI of

CRANMER'S GODLY ORDER sums it up well...

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...ranmer.htm

One correction I would make to Magdalene's comments is that it can be valid. This is in no way assured, as in the Traditional Mass.

Didn't Eucharistic ministers originate at the Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopalian service??

I went to a Episcopalian service about 10 years ago and although they all kneeled to receive, they all gathered around a large "banquet" table for bread and grape juice.
(07-09-2010, 01:07 PM)chiella Wrote: [ -> ]Many of the hymns that are used in the NO Masses are also sung in some of the Protestant churches. 

It's alright to use protestant hymns as long as they are theologically correct.

(07-09-2010, 01:07 PM)chiella Wrote: [ -> ]The exchange of peace amongst everyone was in the Methodist and Baptist churches that I grew up in. 

The exchange of peace is very, very old.
Outside of the words of consecration, the Novus Ordo does not claim to be a sacrifice made in reparation for sin. Instead, the Novus Ordo states that it is a Mass of "praise and thanksgiving". Yes, the Mass is indeed a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but it not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; it is a sacrifice made in reparation for sin - that was the whole point of Christ's death on the cross. This is what the councils of the Church have declared infallibly. Outside of the scriptural dialogue (narrative) which constitutes the form of the sacrament, the actual prayers and offerings never say this. That doesn't mean it's not a valid consecration, but if the axiom lex orandi, lex credendi is at all true, that is, if we believe as we pray, if our beliefs are reflected in our prayers, if what we pray becomes what we also believe, then the Mass, the official prayer of the Church, should be praying that the sacrifice be offered in reparation for sin, rather than simply reading a Scriptural narrative. (Reading stories from the Bible does not constitute prayer. Reading King David's Psalms does. Reading about King David offering a sacrifice to God as a propitiation for sin does not constitute an offering. Praying that the sacrifice be a propitiation for sin - and then effecting the sacrifice - does.)

When God was sacrificed on the Cross, His sacrifice was a propitiation for sin. But stating in the Mass that Christ's sacrifice was a propitiatory sacrifice is not the same as saying that the sacrifice we offer now has the same effect. To many people (and indeed most Protestants), that propitiation was already fully accomplished by Christ's death on the cross. They say, as did Calvin, that we can offer the same sacrifice, but only Christ's physical death on Calvary was propitiatory. This, of course, is heresy, and it needs to be said that our sacrifice is not only the same sacrifice, but that it also has the same effect when offered non-locally and at the hands of the priest acting in Christ's stead. When Christ was offering Himself physically, locally, at His own hands, His sacrifice was propitiatory, but there are those who deny that our re-presentation of the same sacrifice has the same effect. They say this because they believe that the merits of Christ's physical offering of Himself on the Cross were perfect in their own right and could not be recreated by our own re-presentation of it. "Do this in remembrance of me." The priest is standing in as Christ, but is the effect the same at the hands of the priest? We are saying the same words as Christ, but does our saying them mean that the sacrifice has the same effect? The Calvinists say no.

The Mass itself is propitiatory, not just Christ's physical death on Calvary, which was presented at the Last Supper, as you well know; and that is what the Scriptural text of the form of the sacrament says - that the shedding of His Blood would be offered up for sinners. It does not say that every Mass we now offer is also propitiatory.

We believe the two are inseparable, and so we should pray thus. We believe the sacrifice in the Mass is propitiatory, not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving that calls to mind the sacrifice of Calvary, and so we also should pray thus. To say that the sacrifice of Christ's physical presence on Calvary was propitiatory is a given, but the Calvinists object that the phrase:
Quote:It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven
indicates that Christ was saying His physical sacrifice soon to come was propitiatory (because of the future tense), but, even though the bread and wine were substantially His Body and Blood, our immitation of Him does not produce the same effect. This is what the Scriptural narrative does not say.

In the Old Testament, the Jewish sacrifices were symbols of their own internal dispositions to sacrifice themselves for God: they were to unite themselves with the offering as if it were their own selves being sacrificed. The reason we eat His Body and Drink His Blood at the Mass is to unite ourselves with His sacrifice in the manner that the Jews were to unite themselves with their own imperfect sacrifices. The problem with a lack of belief in the Mass's propitiatory effect is that it is a direct attack on the Real Presence. Why? Because if the Mass is not the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood Christ, if it is not actually propitiatory, then the eating and drinking of His Body and Blood is useless; it does nothing to unite us to Him so that we might benefit from the merits of His sacrifice.

I will not attend a Mass which does not pray for that which I believe and what is most essential to the effectiveness of our oblation. If the law of prayer is the law of belief, we need to pray for what we believe. If we intend to maintain our beliefs as Catholics, we should pray as Catholics. If we are going to pray as Catholics, we need to pray for that for which Catholics pray. The sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. Since this has been infallibly declared, we believe that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered in reparation for sin. Since we must believe this, we should also pray this. Therefore, we should pray that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered in reparation for sin - that is the whole purpose of our being there in the first place.

As I've said before, did the people demand this change? Of course not. At Vatican II, German-born Bishop William Duschak called for what he termed an “ecumenical Mass” emphasizing the Supper. When he was asked whether his people had requested such a new liturgy, Bishop Duschak candidly replied: “No, I think they would oppose it, just as many bishops oppose it. But if it could be put into practice, I think they would accept it.”

The modern churches speak of eucharist, true – but what do they mean? For many of them, eucharist is not the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, but rather a celebration of Jesus’ spiritual “Real Presence” in the community, or gathering of people. That is why they clap, sing, shake hands, dance, and make good “fellowship”. THAT to them is all eucharist. They are celebrating Christ in each other. And it is not surprising that they would believe this. The very prayers of the Mass they attend don't tell them why they are there.

Many modernized Catholics are quite content with this new meaning of eucharist. Still others are unhappy that the idea of eucharist has been changed since Vatican II, but they say that the change is an abuse and not the intention of those who produced the new Mass. But is the change in the meaning of eucharist really just an abuse, or is it the whole point of the new liturgy? Where does the new Mass place the emphasis: on the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament OR on the spiritual presence of Christ in the so-called “people of God”? Let us consider why the question of focus is surfaced.

The old catechisms defined the Mass as “the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

What then is the purpose of the new liturgy?

One can find the answer in the General Instruction published with the new Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on April 6, 1969. It is the official commentary on the new liturgy, as the Congregation of Rites stated: “It is further decreed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, also approved by Pope Paul, should come into effect on November 30, with the Order of Mass.”

And what does this original General Instruction say about the new Mass?

1969 Gen. Inst. No. 7 Wrote:“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.’

In this statement there is no mention of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, only His spiritual presence in the people. The corruption of the idea of eucharist is no accident or abuse; it seems to be the whole point of the new liturgy: eucharist is no longer to mean the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament offered at Mass as at Calvary, but rather the spiritual presence of Christ in the “gathering together of the people to celebrate.”

After much criticism, this definition was later extended to include a sacrificial nature:

Quote:The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements and Its Parts

I. The General Structure of the Mass

27. At Mass—that is, the Lord's Supper—the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 37 For this reason Christ's promise applies in an outstanding way to such a local gathering of the holy Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt 18:20). For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated,38 Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species.

Notice, though, that it still does not mention the propitiatory nature of the Mass, a seriously troubling omission.

While the new liturgy presents itself as a memorial service which is made possible by the continuation of the sacrifice (it indicates this when it says, "For in the celebration of Mass..." as if to say that the sacrifice is there to make the memorial service possible), the traditional Mass is clearly all about a sacrifice – in fact, THE sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. But what kind of sacrifice was that? The traditional Mass – like the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary – says it is offered in reparation for sin. But the new Mass calls itself only a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” It recalls that Jesus once died for our sins, but the four modern Eucharistic Prayers never state that the new Mass is itself offered in reparation for sin. How then can it be the same sacrifice as Calvary?

From the Ottaviani Intervention: “In the traditional Mass, the very Body and Blood of Christ are offered in sacrifice. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between God and man: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the bread of life; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a spiritual drink. …Here, bread and wine are only spiritually, not substantially, changed.”

The denial that the Mass was a sacrifice offered in reparation for sin was a tragic error of the heretics over four hundred years ago. The Catholic Church condemned this heresy at the great Council of Trent, which decreed: “If anyone should say that the Mass is just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, and not propitiatory…anathema sit.”

About the time the new liturgy was published (1969), men who had been influential experts at Vatican II were busy publishing a series of books on the changes that were to take place in the Church. The series was appropriately entitled “Concilium” (The Council). Its volume on the liturgical reform featured an article by a Benedictine, Kilian McDonnell, entitled “Calvin’s Conception of the Liturgy and the Future of the Roman Catholic Liturgy”. After criticizing the ancient Latin liturgy of the Church and praising the liturgical inventions of the heretic John Calvin, the Benedictine priest makes this bold prediction about the Catholic Liturgy of the future: “The norm for the future within Catholicism will be the norm Calvin enunciated: freedom within form.” It seems very likely that the future Catholic liturgy is being patterned after John Calvin’s ideas – the same Calvin who taught that the Holy Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ’s spiritual presence in the congregation.

Again, in the Intervention of 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani predicted with lamentable accuracy that “the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.”
I think what IMPEFESS wrote is probably the strongest argument of the particular position Pilgrim has asked about. FWIW the propiatory nature of the Mass is still taught in the CCC:

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

187 Lk 22:19-20.
188 Mt 26:28.
189 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.
190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.
(07-09-2010, 04:25 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]I think what IMPEFESS wrote is probably the strongest argument of the particular position Pilgrim has asked about. FWIW the propiatory nature of the Mass is still taught in the CCC:

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

187 Lk 22:19-20.
188 Mt 26:28.
189 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.
190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.

That is comforting.
(07-09-2010, 01:07 PM)chiella Wrote: [ -> ]I see some.  Many of the hymns that are used in the NO Masses are also sung in some of the Protestant churches.  I find that the chatting in the Sanctuary before & after the Mass remind me of my Protestant days where everyone used the time sitting in the pew to chat with those around them.  The exchange of peace amongst everyone was in the Methodist and Baptist churches that I grew up in.  As for many of the homilies, they could be said in a Methodist church half the time.  The Baptist churches that  I grew up with are more fire and brimstone sermons, but Methodists are all about love - God loves us, we love eachother....  Rarely do you hear much preaching on anything else.  It is all tolerance and love.  (hence their slogan - "One heart, one mind, one church" - tolerant of all people and welcoming, whether they live in sinful states or not.)  I have heard someone say that the list of prayers reminds them of the Protestant church.  In the Protestant churches I grew up in, the preacher always asked if anyone had prayer requests and we spent a few minutes with people announcing their prayer requests during the service.  I guess for some, the listing of prayer requests in the NO Mass reminds them of this.  Children's time is reminiscent of the Protestant churches for me.  Oh.... and the obvious - the receiving of communion in the hands from lay people.  This is usually how it (bread and grapejuice) were often served in both the Methodist and Baptist churches that I went to.  These are my observations - I am sure there are many more and that many have had very different experiences.

None of these directly address the prayers or rubrics of the Novus Ordo Mass itself. I can almost guarantee that each of these, even Communion in the hand, has happened at a Tridentine Mass somewhere in the world last Sunday. In contrast, at my Anglican Use parish, the evening Novus Ordo Mass is sung entirely in Latin with only Gregorian chant for music, only Communion on the tongue while kneeling at the rood screen, and so on and so forth. It would be virtually impossible for most ordinary Catholics to be able to tell the difference between it and the Tridentine Mass.

It's also worth mentioning that the sign of peace is exchanged between the ministers at the altar in the solemn form of the Tridentine Mass, and the bidding prayers/intercessions are retained in the Good Friday Liturgy.


So I think the best arguments against the Novus Ordo are the ones which deal directly with the prayers, or the mindset of its architects. But things that deal with the priests who celebrate the Mass themselves are very subjective, since many priests offer the new Mass in good faith.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6