TLM and Lutherans History
#1
JMJ

Hey everyone! Question...My wife and I are appalled at how similar NOM and Lutheran services look. We understand that there was protestants on the board that changed the Mass. Where can we find Vatican documents to support this? Was the Luthern service always looking the way it does now? Does the NOM have any roots older than Trent? Did Trent change the Mass to look like the TLM that we have now (we know that it was changed slightly before VC2)

I know that Mother Church has said that NOM is valid so when we *have* to go to one we do, TLM is a 45 minute drive and in inclemant weather it's not always safe to travel that far.

Any help, references to Vatican documents or other sound sources welcomed. So far all we can find are sources from groups like SSPX, but she wants something more official.

Reply
#2
Stop attending the NO and go to the nearest TLM. It will be the best for your souls, trust me.
Reply
#3
My best friend is a Lutheran, and is consequently my ride to the TLM (weird, I know.) She's been to both NO and TLM, and says that the TLM is more like the Lutheran services she's used to. I'm not sure if I actually believe it, but its certainly weird. Could be she just attends some kind of "high church" liturgy ( I don't know, I of course have never accompanied her to any Lutheran services.)
Reply
#4
You won't find anything in any Vatican document that "Lutheranizes" the Mass per se.

First, there are no V2 docs that affect the liturgy in this way.

The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missal and the GIRM that accompanies it is actually what changed the Mass, and these were not issued at Vatican 2, but subsequent to it.  Even in those, you find the table concept, multiple Scripture readings, Protestantized prayers, etc., but there is no demand for felt banners, lousy homilies, nuns in pant suits, etc.  90% of the Lutheranization is what priests and "liturgists" took upon themselves.

I make the distinction because your question is about the appearance of the Mass rather than the content.  If you want to talk about "Protestantization" of the prayers, that's a different question.

Prove it to yourself:  Watch an EWTN Novus Ordo Mass and it will be clear that while it isn't the TLM, it can't in any way be mistaken for a Lutheran or other Protestant service.
Reply
#5
The similarity of the Novus Ordo to a Lutheran wedding I attended (ECLA), was what made me look into traditionalism and come over to tradition. The only difference was a lack of prayers for the Pope and...a woman was "presiding"...<shudder>

Quote:The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missal and the GIRM that accompanies it is actually what changed the Mass, and these were not issued at Vatican 2, but subsequent to it.  Even in those, you find the table concept, multiple Scripture readings, Protestantized prayers, etc., but there is no demand for felt banners, lousy homilies, nuns in pant suits, etc.  90% of the Lutheranization is what priests and "liturgists" took upon themselves.

With the toleration, and I'd even say encouragement, of those same bishops who were at Vatican II!

Both at Vatican II and "subsequently"...decrees on liturgy are disciplinary and could theoretically be totally tossed out...so I dont see making such a distinction between "the mutable disciplinary decrees of the council itself" and "the mutable implementation afterward by the same bishops who wrote those decrees" as really anything more than a word game the Neocons play to try to idolize "the Council" as if its documents are Inspired texts, or really distinct from the ecclesiastical culture and hierarchical milieu in which it occurred (as demonstrated by what those same hierarchs did afterward).

Quote:Prove it to yourself:  Watch an EWTN Novus Ordo Mass and it will be clear that while it isn't the TLM, it can't in any way be mistaken for a Lutheran or other Protestant service.

I'd disagree. Even a "dressed up" Novus Ordo like on EWTN done "by the books" is, from what I've seen of Lutheran services, almost exactly the same. I havent seen EWTN's mass in a while, maybe they've upped it a bit. But I was shocked by the absolute similarity, at least with the ECLA, that's how I became a trad.

"Stricter" synods of Lutherans, or High Church Anglicans...it could be argued have an even "higher" liturgy than us now! We used to rival the Orthodox in the "highness" of our liturgy...and now, the NO is "lower" than High Church Anglican services...it's pathetic.

Reply
#6
When Dr. Luther D. Reed published his monumental study, The Lutheran Liturgy in 1958, he had an appendix which showed the Roman Mass (in English), the Lutheran Liturgy from the Service Book of 1958, and the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer, in parallel columns. All had certain features in common, but were so distinct that you would have to be blind not to notice the important differences. Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans all knew the distinctive features of their own rite.

All this changed after Rome introduced the Novus Ordo in 1969. The Lutherans and Anglicans wanted to appear as close as possible to their Catholic neighbors. Hence By 1978 all three bodies were using the same three-year lectionary and the same ICEL translations of the Ordinary. A casual observer will scarcely notice the differences.

However, those who are attuned to the opposition between Catholic and Protestant doctrine and practice of the Eucharist can still tell the difference.

When I was a Lutheran seminarian I once attended a Saturday evening Mass at Holy Hill in Wisconsin. This was in the Fall of 1978. I thought the Novus Ordo Roman Mass still reeked of propitiatory sacrifice in all four Eucharistic Prayers; thought there was still too much reference to the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the Saints; too much "bowing and scraping".

Has the Novus Ordo Mass, offered strictly according to the text and rubrics, been made over into a Protestant Service? No. Certainly not to one who really knows the difference. Nor have the Protestant services become recognizably Catholic, despite their greater similarity today than before Vatican II.

Reply
#7
QuisUtDeus Wrote:First, there are no V2 docs that affect the liturgy in this way.

Sacrosanctum Concilium
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...um_en.html

Here is the very first paragraph (which is also the very first paragraph issued by VII) in which the purpose of the document is stated to be adaptation, change, and unity among all Christians, with regard to "reform of the liturgy." So in other words, the Catholic Mass will be changed and adapted (euphemisms for destroyed and re-created) in order to appeal to Protestants and everyone else non-Catholic in the whole world.

Quote: 1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

One sees every now and then articles in which the author picks out a few conservative sentences from Sacrosanctum Concilium and then goes on to claim that VII never intended to create the New Mass. This is entirely false, both in regard to the methods and to the conclusions. One must read the statements in context while considering -- as some Supreme Court justices like to say -- "the intent of the framers."

The intent of the framers of Sacrosanctum Concilium was to create a new liturgy that would be more acceptable to Protestants especially, as well as to other non-Catholics. Anyone who tries to deny this hasn't read any of the literature published so voluminously at the time by those who took control of the Council and triumphed in their stated goals.
Reply
#8
As Annibale Bugnini outlines in his book Reform of the Liturgy the Protestants that attended the meetings of the Consilium that wrote the Liturgy (Novus Ordo Mass) 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.

Machael Davies relates in the book Liturgical Time Bombs that Protestant observer Canon Ronald Jasper was interviewed by him in 1977 and he (Jasper) 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.

Here is a photo of Pope Paul VI with the Protestant advisors:

http://traditioninaction.org/Revolut...otsestants.htm

"Maximilian" Wrote:The intent of the framers of Sacrosanctum Concilium was to create a new liturgy that would be more acceptable to Protestants especially, as well as to other non-Catholics. Anyone who tries to deny this hasn't read any of the literature published so voluminously at the time by those who took control of the Council and triumphed in their stated goals.

Reply
#9
Try this link instead of the above:

http://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionP...stants.htm
Reply
#10
As a post V2 Catholic just discovering the Tridentine Mass along with many other traditions, I'm frustrated with the lack of information regarding the motivation for the NO.  Was there a general outcry from the faithful over the traditional Mass?  Why did John 23 call V2 in the first place?  Why did Paul 6 take it upon himself to introduce the NO?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)