Ottaviani Intervention?

[Monica4316]

Hello,

what do you think about the idea that the VII Council initially rejected the “new” Mass revisions… but then it was assumed that they accepted them and that version of the Mass was further revised and became the Novus Ordo.

btw I am not a sedevacantist or anything… I however do attend the TLM.

I’m trying to figure out what to think about Vatican II… and whether it was a misunderstood council, or whether it was taken over by modernism, or whether it is good and we should totally obey it. I was told it was a pastoral council and not infallible or dogmatic… what do you think? (and please support your position). I tend to think it was a misunderstood council and also there was some modernism, not on the part of the Pope but some bishops or cardinals. (some… not all).

I don’t want this to become a debate, I am just looking for information. Here is the document I mean: catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

My current position on the Novus Ordo Mass is that while it’s a valid Mass, there are many changes in it that were either:

• not supposed to be there
• not mandated by the Council (there’s a surprising amount of these!)
• some are okay.

one change, Communion in the hand, was actually the result of disobedience to the Vatican by some bishops. I read a comment by Fr John Hardon on that.

My intention is to be obedient to the Church and to the Pope! I’m just wondering how much can we question Novus Ordo until we are disobedient? …I am questioning the abuses in it. (which are slowly getting fixed, thankfully). Many of these abuses came after VII. However, I also think that some aspects of VII or the initial changes to the Mass (within the Council) were influenced by modernism. If that is not the case and VII is infallible and dogmatic, please let know. Is it infallible???

thanks! God bless

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m trying to figure out what to think about Vatican II… and whether it was a misunderstood council, or whether it was taken over by modernism, or whether it is good and we should totally obey it.

I think that a spirit of modernism was present at the time, and a lot was said and done “in the spirit of Vatican II” this was wacky.

I’ve heard many people who said the Council itself was affected by modernism. And I always say the same thing - show me something in the actual Council resolutions that they object to. And they never do.

Novus Ordo was not part of Vatican II. V2 directed that a vernacular Mass be created, but it had nothing to do with its creation. It was created by a liturgical committee after Vatican II had ended, and was approved by Pope Paul VI.

The form of the Mass (with the exception of the words of Consecration) is not part of the teaching of the Church. We participate in that form out of obedience, but we are not required to accept that it is the best of all possible forms - or even a good form (but we are not free to feel it is an invalid form). Coming from a traditional Anglican background, I find Novus Ordo to be rather dry and not as reverent as other forms. But I go to Mass (N.O.) every Sunday, and I’m grateful to be able to do so.

FWIW, the Church will soon introduce a revised form (this Advent, I believe) which you will probably find more to your liking.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Please understand the V2 was a valid general council, called as such by JohnXXIII. As such, its teachings (all of them) are infallible, since it was guided by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus prophesied).

The Novus Ordo is the ORDINARY FORM (OF) of the Mass and must be respected as such. That (many?) bishops and priests have and still do "murder " it is not relevant. It is still the OF and is to be celebrated according to the GIRM…and that is the ACTUAL responsibility of EVERY Bishop…yeah, tell me about it!

The TLM is the EXTRAORDINARY FORM (EF) of the Mass which our Pope has decreed can be celebrated by any priest at any time (providing he is trained to do so). many priets never learned Latin, so that is a slight caution.

Hope that helps a bit. Peace!

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the reply… so we are bound to agree with VII, however it did not say much about the Novus Ordo, which was created afterwards? and we are free to disagree with aspects of the Novus Ordo as long as we believe it is valid? I believe it is valid as in I believe the Sacraments are still there - provided the priest uses the proper form/matter and intends to consecrate the Eucharist. However I do have some problems with parts of it, - which seem to be unrelated not only to VII but even to the original Novus Ordo, and come rather from modernism and liberalism… (or are indults that became a norm). I do think that modernism affected the formation of the new Mass in ways, but maybe now they are trying to fix that, ie: new translation. Hopefully over time it would get better.

Do you think that any future Pope or Council would have the authority to return the ordinary of the Mass back to the TLM? Since the form of the Mass is not infallible?

thanks again God bless

 

[Monica4316]

I also found this document about the new ordination form… it first talks about its problems, but then says that it is still valid. I just wanted to check my understanding… the Anglican ordinations were considered invalid because although the form of the essential part was similar, they denied the reality of the Mass and also did not intend to do what the Church does. However in this case, with the Catholic Church, - even though the part about the Mass being a sacrifice was removed from the form, - there was still an intention to do what the Church does, - which is the Church teaching about the Mass being a sacrifice. Also, if the bishop intends to do what the Church does, while ordaining a priest, the priest is ordained properly because the Holy See views the role of the priest and the Mass correctly. Is this right or wrong??? here is the article: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinal.htm

I hope someone knows about this… thanks!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks for the reply… so we are bound to agree with VII, however it did not say much about the Novus Ordo

Vatican II said NOTHING about Novus Ordo. What it said about the “new Mass” constitutes two entire paragraphs in Sacrosanctum Concilium (part 50):

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

That’s IT! Two paragraphs.

Did Novus Ordo perfectly meet the goal expressed by the Council? Well, if it did, we would not be fixin’ to issue a substantial revision. And it will be revised again someday.

The form of the Mass (with the exception of the words of consecration) changes all the time.

Do you think that any future Pope or Council would have the authority to return the ordinary of the Mass back to the TLM? Since the form of the Mass is not infallible?

Of course they have this authority. But I don’t think it’s actually gonna happen. But I do think Novus Ordo will become more like TLM (and the traditional Anglican rite).

 

[DavidFilmer]

I also found this document about the new ordination form…

I recommend you open a new thread to discuss this, as it has nothing to do with Novus Ordo. That will insure you get the best possible response.

 

[EricFilmer]

FWIW, the Church will soon introduce a revised form (this Advent, I believe) which you will probably find more to your liking.

Yes, as far as the United States is concerned, the official starting date for the new English Missal is the 1st Sunday of Advent of this year. I think most, of not all, of the other English speaking Catholic conferences are likewise using this launch date. The English of the new missal will be a closer translation of the Latin, and is supposed to give a greater poetic beauty to the prayers and responses.

A recent announcement by the USCCB

An article on the new missal

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks for the reply… so we are bound to agree with VII, however it did not say much about the Novus Ordo

Vatican II said nothing about Novus Ordo. It called for a new form of Mass in Sacrosanctum Concilium (#50) and devoted five whole paragraphs (#51-56) to describing the overall characteristics. I might be able to quote the whole thing and not exceed CAF post length limits:

1. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

1. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God’s word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

1. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.

1. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world [39].

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

1. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

1. The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.

Did Novus Ordo perfectly meet the goal expressed by the Council? Well, if it did, we would not be fixin’ to issue a substantial revision. And it will be revised again someday.

The form of the Mass (with the exception of the words of Consecration) changes all the time. Only the words of Consecration are dogmatically defined and required for the validity of the Sacrament.

Do you think that any future Pope or Council would have the authority to return the ordinary of the Mass back to the TLM?

Of course they have this authority. But I don’t think it’s actually gonna happen. But I do think Novus Ordo will become more like TLM (and the traditional Anglican rite).