No, I was pointing out that the two are similar. You will note in my original post that I stated the following:

...correlation doesn't imply causality.

Now to the issue again.

The chief problem with the list is that when both 1549 and the Missal of Paul the VI share some feature in common--say, use of the vernacular--it assumes that the Missal was changed to "make it acceptable to protestants," rather than something intended to reconnect to the sources of the liturgy.

A few points: 1. this statement is a strawman, as the point which was clearly stated was that it wasn't simply one aspect or "some feature" singular that they share in common, but a whole host of features.

2. it is begging the question: "what are the sources of the liturgy to which the Novus Ordo was trying to reconnect?" If anyone can cite those sources to which the NO was trying to reconnect (with proper citations), please do so, as I would welcome perusing that information.

3. was the Missal changed to "make it more acceptable to Protestants?" What proof can you offer that explicitly states that it wasn't? Until such documentation can be provided, the possibility that it was changed for that exact reason still exists, and there is circumstantial evidence that points to it, such as the presence of six Protestant ministers at the Second Vatican Council, the numerous aforementioned similarities between the resulting Missal and Cranmer's Mass of the Lord's Supper (1549, just to make sure there's no confusion this time), the modern rejection of Gregorian chant and the use of Latin in the liturgy, and the increased amount of Scripture presented during the Mass (Scripture isn't a bad thing, but it could be said that the increase was to counter the Protestant claim that we aren't a "Bible church"). Some would say that those six ministers were just there to observe. Why did we need outsiders to observe our house meeting? I believe they were present for more than observation: they provided insight into what Protestants were being taught and what would make them comfortable coming to Mass, and suggested changes to the liturgy to accommodate this. Some would say that the modern rejection of Gregorian chant and Latin in the liturgy is due to "pastoral concerns" such as that "the people" can't sing Gregorian chant, can't understand Latin, or don't like Gregorian chant. Is the Mass about what "the people" want? Why is it that "the people" have to sing everything? Why is it imperative that "the people" be able to understand every single word uttered during the Mass? Here's my take: Protestants are accustomed to two things that until the Novus Ordo were absent in the Catholic Mass: 1. hymns and religious songs that the congregation sang together at every service as the main medium for musical worship (not like the Ordinary of the Mass, devotional songs and familiar hymns that "go with the readings" or "go with the sermon"), and 2. liturgy in a language they can speak and understand, with a minister that speaks directly to them, again in their language. I am not entirely sure why the first one is important in Protestant circles, as I am not, nor have ever been Protestant. I do not have experience or knowledge of it. The second I believe comes from Martin Luther's idea that all Christians should be able to interpret the word of God according to his or her own light. I actually came across that concept while watching one of His Excellency Bishop Robert Barron's videos on You Tube, specifically the one that addresses Protestants and Authority, which discusses who has the authority to interpret Scripture. The Protestant custom (from historically observable practice) of the minister facing and directly addressing his people is one possible reason for the abandonment of ad orientem worship, even though the Novus Ordo doesn't actually call for it: Protestants might be more comfortable with a minister who talks to them and not the wall, as ad orientem could possibly seem to them. It could also possibly explain the claims of the priest having his "back to the people." Protestants would have been accustomed to a minister who faces them, and talks to them directly. This is also a possible explanation for the increased use of the loud voice in the Novus Ordo: to help Protestants understand what the priest is doing at Mass. I can just imagine Protestants sitting in Mass for the first time with their Catholic friend or family and wondering to themselves during the Epistle reading, "what is he doing? Is he just reading it out loud to himself? Why is he singing that? Why couldn't he just read it to us?" or during the Canon, "what's going on now? Isn't he going to talk to us? What are we doing now, it's like we're not even here!"

Here is the video of His Excellency's discourse on Protestantism and Authority should you wish to watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

Let us also not forget that the idea of trying to change the Mass so that it "reconnects with earlier sources of the liturgy" was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei after the Synod of Pistoia tried to do it. See the following from the document, Art. 33:

33. The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,— rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.

Of particular importance are the words, "...as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated..." The idea, then, that the Novus Ordo was developed to "reconnect with sources of the liturgy" implies that the liturgy of the Church, which had been, as Pope Pius VI so eloquently states, "received and approved by the Church," was in error somehow and a new order needed to be drawn up in order to "restore" it. As you can see, that idea was clearly condemned in Auctorem Fidei.

The analysis of the late Michael Davies (from which the list draws), I am afraid, was often skewed by his presumption that a nefarious plot was afoot, which led him to conflate correlation and causation. One might disagree with any number of the specific choices made by the Concilium and offer reasons for why they were bad (I, for one, would have left the saints in the Confiteor and Libera nos), but the Cranmer-plot paranoia simply undercuts the credibility of one's critique.

The statement here regarding the potential disconnect between correlation and causation is correct: correlation does not imply causation. However, the statement is also argumentum ad hominem: it seeks to reduce the credibility of the list by attacking its author's motives.

Much of what I said above is anecdotal, but I have provided citations and substantiated my claims wherever I could.

Let me also state that I hold the arguments of the deacon here in the utmost respect. I would not bother to offer such refutation if I did not.

I'd never heard of Missarum Sollemnia before. I will check that out. Thank you, deacon.

For anyone else who is interested in reading it, here is the link:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2014/jan/25/josef-jungmann-study-roman-rite-mass-pdf/

I would also suggest reading "The Ottaviani Intervention." I realize that some things have changed since he wrote the letter, and we are beginning to see some improvements to the problems he mentions, but many of them still remain.

1. hymns and religious songs that the congregation sang together at every service as the main medium for musical worship (not like the Ordinary of the Mass, devotional songs and familiar hymns that "go with the readings" or "go with the sermon")

Not sure how broadly we are defining 'Protestant' for the purposes of this discussion, but it is probably generally understood that in the Anglican/Episcopal liturgy we do sing the Ordinary (or at least the Anglican equivalent) each week, in addition to hymns. I have always understood the hymns to be the functional equivalent propers: we even call them 'communion hymn,' 'offertory hymn,' 'gradual/sequence hymn' (some controversy!), and we have a hymn which functions very much like an introit. The texts change every week (we sing a lot of hymns!) It is true that we generally relate hymns to readings, or to the collect of the day; but I have always understood that propers are similarly 'geared.' (Now speaking outside areas of expertise, such as they may be)

Had read an interesting (well, to me) article recently, somewhat related: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/03/the-catholic-case-for-protestant-hymns

I have spent the past many years working among the Protestants, and it is always refreshing to hear the Catholic take on things Protestant! (And, I will add, vice versa!)

"I fail to see how keeping the windows closed could help (I think you were implying that 'throwing open the windows' was a bad thing)."

I clearly recall the enthusiasm my 7th grade teacher, a nun, about a year before Vat. II closed. A Liturgy - the Mass - that was pretty much 'carved in stone' could be open to re-incorporating aspects of the historic Liturgies that had fallen into disuse. I didn't know about Rites of Sarum, Dominicans, etc., at that time, but it did seem to me that the Mass would very much be enriched by these restorations. I don't think that would have been considered throwing open the windows, at least not the way the post-Vat. II "liturgists" defined it!

But that never happened!

Then Vat. II was over. The next weekend the priests in all US parishes had for the Sermons a simple announcement that "This would be our last Mass, ever, in Latin. There would be something in the pew next weekend in English."

Then the 1974 Sacramentary was published, with its butchered "Gloria" and torture English throughout. Then came all the "new music", and not from the good musicians who had produced, at the drop of the mitre, all sorts of usable music for the 1966 existing English translations. (These musicians, for all their good faith work, were now deprived of their royalties for the rest of their lives because their work WAS NO LONGER WANTED OR ALLOWED!)

I also notice, at that time, even as a high school student with uncles and cousins who were Protestant, that our new translation was very similar to their new translation. It was obvious that some group was trying to invent a surface only ecumenism.

I didn't know the history of Cranmer at that time, but if the shoe fits ...

Now is the time for historic aspects of the Liturgy to be reincorporated, and I believe they are, but not in the OF Mass - only in the EF Masses in certain locales. And many of those have growing congregations while regular parishes either have declining congregations or are made up of converts from Protestant denominations.

My problem with hymns at Mass is that the CDW is not involved. If hymns are in effect replacements for the proper chants from the gradual, they should receive the same scrutiny as the translations. It is utterly absurd that CDW threw a tantrum over the 1998 translation mainly because ICEL included newly composed texts (as alternatives) alongside their translations, and then allow any old text in instead. It's the wording of the hymns which Protestantizes faith "legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi", Cranmer gets no blame here the only hymns he allowed for are the Gloria and the Te Deum.

You, assuredly, are not alone.
Schism is schism.
Schismatics are schismatics.

for the record
I am not a schismatic
the pope is the pope
the NO is valid (when not abused)
and I fully uphold the magisterium of the RC Church

This thread is not about a person
It is about a rite gone wrong

thank you CK for the defense

it is the job of the moderator to enforce this rule, so I am bringing it to their attention

Do Not Defame
Members may not level insinuations of heresy, bad faith, or criminality against members; members should also avoid such inflammatory language against non-members.

An apology may be necessary to protect my name

rather than something intended to reconnect to the sources of the liturgy

Umnnhhh...well, then, what was wrong with the 1965 version, which clearly allowed vernacular for the readings, but all else in Latin? To put that another way: was the 1965 NOT 'connected to the sources'? If so, why was it implemented? (We also know that some of those 'sources' were invented from thin air by the 'reformers.')

The difficulty with reliance on 'connected to the sources' is that lots of the 'sources' are disparate. Rome-rite was not Frankish-rite, nor was it the Spanish-rite, nor even that Northern Italian-rite. For that matter, it was not the Greek (Orthodox) rite, which is also quite ancient. We could go on.

We do know this: the NO was written by a group, many members of which were notable for their "progressive" thoughts. Some of those people came to very bad ends in their Church careers. And ya'know, that Guy in the Gospel said stuff about bad trees making bad fruit, or some such.

Being polite, one can observe that where there is smoke there is always a fire.

.

I find it helpful to logically separate the various goods which a liturgy might accomplish. There are two major categories of goods: natural and supernatural.

Within the supernatural category is everything that has to do with whether a Mass is a valid sacrament. God's grace, Christ's presence, the atoning sacrifice, so on, and so forth. This is the most important thing. But it is also thing over which we have little direct influence. What music I program, or how precisely I wave my hands at a choir, or what the priest is wearing (mostly?) don't affect this. Since it is unwise to worry about things we can't affect, I don't even know that this is an area worth diving into most of the time.

These supernatural graces depend on God alone. Our valid rites are not magic formulae that produce the supernatural effect. Rather, God has promised to provide the effect, so we trust in that promise whenever we hold up our end of that bargain. Kalistos Ware has even said that God may potentially offer those graces (or some other graces) in "invalid" circumstances - for example, a Protestant communion service. The difference being that there has been no promise to do so, and so we cannot presume that this is the case. Validity is a guarantee that something is present somewhere, not that that same something is definitively absent anywhere else.

Then there are the natural goods: social cohesion, transmission of the faith, preservation of culture, moral formation, doctrinal instruction, inspiration, enjoyment... Of course, these things have their origin in God, but are accessible to all people, even apart from the grace of valid sacraments. (This is why an "invalid" Anglican liturgy can still be a wonderful thing.)

The question about any particular (valid/approved) rite, or constellation of liturgical practices, shouldn't be focused on validity. It should be focused on the less important - but still very important - sets of goods which we have within our competency to judge and which are within our responsibility to effect.

Charitably, I think that what (most of) the NO-bashers object to is not that the new Rite is sacramentally deficient, but that it fails to promote one or more goods which the Older Rite does promote. I think this is fair, but I also think that the NO (when properly celebrated) provides some goods which the Older Rite did not.

It is, I think, an open question whether these trade-offs in secondary goods were worthwhile. I am not convinced that they are, but I think a valid argument could be made either way. Were it the case that only one form of the Rite could be offered, the Extraordinary Form should become the ordinary choice. But that is not the case. We do not need to pick the one right rite. More to the point, I am of the opinion that the most good is done by a robust liturgical culture in which all the rites, forms, and uses are available, with as much valid variety as possible, with as much quality as possible, for as many of the faithful as possible.

More than any aspect of the NO itself, what I am most disturbed by about the XXth c. Church is the tyranny with which the Old Rite was suppressed. If Pope Benedict XVII suppresses the NO or the Anglican Use, I would be (almost but not quite) equally disturbed.

But sometimes ad hominem arguments are apt and appropriate, as when someone presents themselves as the voice of a tradition that they have by their own actions placed themselves outside of.

It is sometimes useful to attempt to commit a logical fallacy to make a point, but you can't be surprised if it gets called out. In this case, the statement above is an example of tu quoque. From what I understand, it claims that an ad hominem argument is ok so long as it is true. The statement here is tu quoque because it claims that a previous ad hominem argument was ok to make because you claim the author made a mistake first.

I think I've well enough made my point. I will at this juncture attempt to bow out.

Thank you, Francis, for your clarification, and your anecdotes of what, apparently, would have been invalid masses.

I would only point out that, if, as you say, 'the words of consecration were deliberately changed', and 'the matter used was not what is dictated by the Church', then such masses as these were not really NO masses, were they. An NO mass, to be an NO mass, must be celebrated with the unviolated ritual text and the Matter, Form, and Intent of the Church.

As always, and yet again, these problems are rooted not in the rite itself, but of the insane things that priests, deacons, and musicians do to it.

The EF, as well, has been subjected to various abuses through the centuries, but no one concludes, therefore, that the rite itself is not authentic. Again, the problem is people, not the rite. The EF, even today, is not, and never has been, immune to abuse - some of which likely resulted, and does result, in invalid masses.

am loath to admit it, but an abused mass is still a mass if celebrated with the right Form, Matter, and Intent. This seems a calumny, so soullessly legalistic. But, by the ex opere operato formula the Church has determined that God's act may be effected even through a highly flawed person who, in holy orders, performs the Church's rites. (And, perhaps there is Divine Wisdom in this - lest anyone think that he or she is not flawed.)

I see truth in this. I read somewhere that God can even use demons to do His will. Must be pretty frustrating for the demon, yes? (Although I believe, and this is completely off topic, that demons are actually glad when He calls them to do His will, as just like the rest of us, they just want to go home). I also feel a little low reducing the Mass to a series of formulas and regulations, but that is the truth of the matter: if the proper formulas are followed and the form, matter, and intent are as prescribed, then the Mass is valid, despite any other flaws that may exist. This is correct per Church law. However, I think that this has exacerbated the problem of what Fr. Vogel calls "legalistic liturgical minimalism:" if the minimum requirements for a valid Mass are met, nothing more is required. The easiest options are then chosen from those available, because nothing more is required.

I have an issue when options that are totally legitimate are suppressed, as is the case with chant and Latin in most parishes in my area, YMMV. I believe this goes along the lines of what Adam was saying above.

I would also like to point out that just because you have the right, or are within your rights to do something, it doesn't mean that you are objectively right.

the whole article is eye opening and well put together

yes I read all of it. did you notice that this thread has been 'sunk'?