[Hat-tip to Rorate Caeli for calling attention to the quote from the Pope's address added to the title (
Additional sources for this story: See www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15801
For Purity and Tradition in Catholicism
If the liturgy “cannot be created or amended … by experts,” then who has been doing such since Pope Pius XII established the Pontifical Commission for the Reform of the Liturgy (separate from the Sacred Congregation of Rites) in 1948?
Hint: Below is pictured (from the Rorate Caeli post) the tomb of one intimately involved with that and later similar pontifical/conciliar/post-conciliar commissions until his unceremonial sacking in 1975:
“Liturgy is foundation of personal prayer, Pope tells audience: “it cannot be created or amended by the individual community or by experts”
Yet who modified the traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews by his lonesome? Who was the other one who added the “glow-in-the-dark” mysteries to Our Lady’s Rosary by his lonesome?
Liturgy is foundation of personal prayer, Pope tells audience: “it cannot be created or amended by the individual community or by experts”
Hahahaha
It’s sad when the pope stoops as low as our obfuscater-in-chief B. Hussein.
Actually, even the Our Father has been amended to appease the Protestants, with VC II’s insertion of the refrain, “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever”.
Before VC II, that had never been in the Catholic Our Father prayer. The traditional Our Father ends with, “deliver us from evil. Amen.”
The mason Bugnini inserted the protestant ending, invented out of whole cloth, and moved the “Amen” after it, implying the new prayer was continuous and one.
Although it is an innovative addition to the Roman liturgy (presumably inspired by its presence in some Eastern Catholic liturgies), it is not “invented out of whole cloth,” but according to Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Prayer#.22For_thine_is_the_kingdom.2C_and_the_power.2C_and_the_glory.2C_for_ever_and_ever._Amen.22):
Tom, I don’t consider Wikipeia a reliable source. The phrase, although ancient and liturgically correct, in question was inserted by Protestants into the Pater Noster. The new mass accepted this insertion by moving the Amen from after, “deliver us from evil” to “forever and ever”.
It is believed that a copyist when copying Matthew’s Gospel put a note in the margin, noting that in the Mass, we follow the “Our Father” with the doxology. A later copyist mistakenly transcribed the margin note into the text itself and it was preserved in all subsequent copies of the manuscript. The King James Version translators in 1611 A.D., (The King James Version is a Protestant Bible) used a copy of the New Testament that contained these added words. Most Protestant scholars admit that these words are not those of our Lord. But since this text was included by the translators, it is used by Protestants but is, ironically, a Catholic Liturgical prayer.
An English version of the Our Father without the doxology actually did become accepted in the English-speaking world during the reign of Edward VI when the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England did not add the doxology. However, during the reign of Elizabeth I there was a desire to rid the Church of England from any Catholic vestiges. Because of this wish for severance and not because of authenticity, the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer was re-included.
Therefore, when non-Catholics ask us why we make the “Our Father” shorter than their form, we should tell them that the added words which they use are not a part of the prayer as given by our Blessed Lord, but rather a pious addition which is ancient but not original.
I take back the “whole cloth”; but I stand by my theory that the insertion of the doxology before the Amen was done purely to appease heretics: just as the “new” traditional Good Friday prayer was created to appease the Jews (even though it backfired; there’s no appeasing some people).
The irony of this answer is that some Protestants sometimes accuse Catholics of not being “literally” faithful to Sacred Scripture and depending too much on tradition. In this case, we see that the Catholic Church has been faithful to the Gospel text of the Our Father, while Protestant Churches have added something of tradition to the word of Jesus.
Father Saunders is president of the Notre Dame Catechetical Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria, VA.
Taken from March 17, 1994, Arlington Catholic Herald
Bugnini Masterminded
The New Mass in Defiance of Pope Paul VI
As we know, Monsignor Annibale Bugnini was the Masonic affiliate who headed the Vatican II consilium for the reform of the Roman liturgy. The consilium consisted of a number of liturgists including a Father Louis Bouyer who was opposed to the changes in the Mass. Bugnini told Bouyer that Pope Paul VI wanted these changes to the liturgy, and then Bugnini told Pope Paul that Bouyer and the consilium experts had decided in favor of these changes. Obviously, it was Bugnini who wanted the changes and Pope Paul later acknowledged to Fr. Bouyer that Monsignor Bugnini was a deceiver. The following is the conversation that took place between Pope Paul VI and Fr. Bouyer in 1974.
From Inside the Vatican:
(Note: here follows the text from the web site; the incident occurred in about 1974.)
==============================
October 3rd — Sainte Thérèse de l’Enfant Jésus (Roman calendar and a local Saint here in Normandy)…
Father Louis Bouyer: I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once and the following conversation ensued:
Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!
Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?
Paul VI: But I don’t understand: I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: “Here is what the experts are asking for.” And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgement.
Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: “The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy.” And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.
Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: “The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that”. And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.
Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done!