The Ottaviani Intervention

[strugglingalong]

1. The article came from the most trusted website in all of the internet.
2. From Fisheaters.com (I wonder why that website and others don’t consider the following?);

**Editor’s note about the above document: **

When studying the issues involved in the new liturgy, you may come across the assertion that Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document retracting his words above. But here is what happened, as recounted at www.traditio.com: A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. *Ed. *Agustoni was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni Ed. along with his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which that fabricated the “New Mass” and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal’s secretary.

So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal’s secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal’s public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony “retraction,” which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never “retracted,” in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.

Yep, that sounds about right. I read that elsewhere.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[cam100]

The objections were based on the 1969 IGMR which was altered one year later. Some of the objections were answered by that document. But even from the point of view of the 1969 IGMR, there are certain exaggerations in the text. It rasies many good points vis the sacrality, lay invovlement and so forth. But there are some parts which I feel are badly argued or not fully correct. Several times it seems as if the author concentrates only on a part of the IGMR and ignores the other parts. Anyway, below was my take on some of the points raised. I tried to avoid quoting the document so as not to lengthen an already long answer, so it may be convenient if you have the Intervention open as well (link).

…

Thank you, AJV, for that excellent analysis of the Ottaviani Intervention. It seems that most people just want to jump to conclusions without actually thinking about what the document really says and surrounding circumstances.

 

[cam100]

)
When studying the issues involved in the new liturgy, you may come across the assertion that Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document retracting his words above. But here is what happened, as recounted at www.traditio.com: A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. *Ed. *Agustoni was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni Ed. along with his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which that fabricated the “New Mass” and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal’s secretary.

So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal’s secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal’s public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony “retraction,” which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never “retracted,” in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.

I’m not sure we can consider www.traditio.com as a reliable source in itself. The author (who is not in communion with Rome) doesn’t seem to show any supporting documents. Also, note that the secretary who was accused of fraud actually continued to rise in rank and eventually became a bishop. It seems that perhaps he was falsely accused, or at least some people thought so.

In addition, if Cardinal Ottaviani went so far as to fire the secretary for forgery, why didn’t he make some kind of public announcement that the letter that was circulating with his name was fake?

 

[strugglingalong]

I’m not sure we can consider www.traditio.com as a reliable source in itself. The author (who is not in communion with Rome) doesn’t seem to show any supporting documents. Also, note that the secretary who was accused of fraud actually continued to rise in rank and eventually became a bishop. It seems that perhaps he was falsely accused, or at least some people thought so.

In addition, if Cardinal Ottaviani went so far as to fire the secretary for forgery, why didn’t he make some kind of public announcement that the letter that was circulating with his name was fake?

I’ve heard other facts in support of what Traditio is saying. One of them is there is some sort of document that was created in support of the New Mass and attempting to silence the criticisms of Cardinal Ottaviani’s Study. This document was written after the purported date of the Cardinals supposed retraction yet it makes no mention of it. It would have made sense that this document would use such a retraction since it was attempting to answer and refute the Study. I forget the details. It is in the TAN Book version of The Ottaviani Intervention.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Thank you, AJV, for that excellent analysis of the Ottaviani Intervention. It seems that most people just want to jump to conclusions without actually thinking about what the document really says and surrounding circumstances.

I don’t think most people here who think approvingly of the Critical Study are not actually thinking about what the document really says and the surrounding circumstances. It’s not fair to make AJV the lone thinker and honest intellectual in the matter while grouping all those who approve of the Study as simply not thinking criticially of its contents.

AJV has made very good points and is obviously very knowledgeable in liturgy. It’d take awhile for me to work through all his points as he has posted a substantial analysis.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[bpbasilphx]

traditio.com clearly has several axes to grind. It’s not exactly an unbiased source.

 

[strugglingalong]

traditio.com clearly has several axes to grind. It’s not exactly an unbiased source.

It doesn’t matter. I don’t think rejecting a claim based on the identity of the source is the best approach. Look at what they claim and answer it. Either what they say is true or false. That’s the issue, not their identity. If they make valid points then those points need answered no matter who proposes them.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[grandfather]

I don’t think most people here who think approvingly of the Critical Study are not actually thinking about what the document really says and the surrounding circumstances. It’s not fair to make AJV the lone thinker and honest intellectual in the matter while grouping all those who approve of the Study as simply not thinking criticially of its contents.

AJV has made very good points and is obviously very knowledgeable in liturgy. It’d take awhile for me to work through all his points as he has posted a substantial analysis.

Pax Christi tecum.

Following the story of the development and implementation of the Mass of Pail VI has many side stories and intrigues. I lived through the time, but was too young and oblivious to be aware of the factions that were at work behind the scenes. There are claims and counter claims of all kinds of skullduggery and betrayal. It really is difficult to know for sure what to believe.

One of the most interesting facts is the fate of Bugnini, dealt to him directly by the hand of Pope Paul VI.

The renovation of the Mass is definitely the biggest liturgical event in centuries. It was a revolutionary and abrupt change imposed by the Pope. One would think that the person who was the chief player in this revolution would have remained in the center of Vatican activity, made a cardinal and put in a position of being in charge of the congregation that oversees worship, or some kind of recognition and appreciation would be expected.

There were allegations that Bugnini was a Mason. The pope put him in charge of the diocese of Tehran, which was like sending someone to Siberia. As the chief architect of the new Mass he might have been considered as a papal candidate. He went from being in the inner circle of power in Rome to oblivion.

The Mass of his design was imposed and the Church went into a decades long decline. Speculators try to connect the dots between cause and effect.

 

[GerardP]

The omission of the angels: in the first place, I fail to see how not mentioning the angels and saints by name demotes them- firstly because many Confiteors used the West don’t have them named except for the BVM. If anything, a weak argument could even be made that the new Confiteor distinguishes between the Blessed Virgin and the saints.

Why is not mentioning the Angels important to the Novus Ordo?

As Vatican II stated, changes were to be made for the good of the Church. Did the good of the Church require the removal of St. Micheal’s name from the Confiteor?

The Liturgical reform is basically a glorified version of the “Where’s Waldo” books. You’ll find a lot of what you’re looking for, but it’s not clear and there is a lot of intentional distraction.

Sure, I can bang out 12 random notes on the piano and claim that all the chords and scales are there, but the purpose is gone. The harmony is destroyed and end of music is frustrated.

Alternatively in the comparison with other rites, I can have a beautiful painting by Renoir in which he used red. Why paint over it to remove the important red because Cezanne or Monet didn’t use it?

No preface in the Traditional Missal mentions all 9 in the hierarchy of angels. The number ranges from 2 to 5. Moreover the preface of EP II is often subsitiuted by a Proper Preface, and in any case it mentions “with all the choirs of angels”.

But that slides by all too quickly. Especially said in a droning vernacular. "Choirs of Angels, without a specific identity attached to it, plus the coincidental suppression of Angelology during the post conciliar period, give you a recipe to diminish devotion to our Spiritual Shepherds. Why?

On a broader view, the Angels are the antithesis of the Darwinian concept of undirected evolution. Man’s “Omega Point” of becoming God sure does look like delusions of Granduer when you have infinitely more powerful Angels of mulitple ranks spending time and expending energy for our benefit.

Also, the Kyrie in its traditional form of 9 petitions was believed by the Medieval scholars to be a parallel honoring of the 9 choirs of Angels. Enhancing the concept of unity with the Angels in praising God and asking for their intercession for us.

The question then becomes, why is the Kyrie reduced to 6 invocations instead of 9? What does 6 mean? And was this change for the good of the Church?

I cannot also see, despite its lamentable omission, how the absence of the names of Ss. Peter and Paul compromises the unity of the Church.

Does not the mention of specific men bring to mind specific actions? Does not the founding of the Church in Rome have a resonance for a Catholic? Doesn’t a reminder of those events keep them from becoming meaningless? If one told mythological stories about the gods, yet never got into detail, wouldn’t it be just
a series of rhetorical flourishes? But you add the name of Hercules or Apollo and suddenly you have a series of details to learn about and draw upon to keep your attention.

The unity of the Church is shown in all the Eucharistic Prayers by the petition for the Pope, the Successor of St. Peter. (and for the local bishop. In addition, outside the Canon Ss. Peter and Paul are not invoked in the other Western liturgies (e.g. Confiteor Deo, Suscipe Sancta Trinitatis) and surely that did not show their lack of unity with the Pope?

If I give you $5 a week out of pure love, and then arbitrarily decide to give you $2 just because I no longer feel like giving you $5 a week, is that a sign that growing devotion?

As regards concelebration: it was present in the Church long before that, in the second because it is present at the Traditional ordination.

But what is it’s purpose?

Insofar as all the priests stand in persona Christi they are one.

How many bodies did Christ have at the Crucifixion?

Or is it that each priest must have an individual altar for it not to overshadow Christ as sole Priest and Victim? I wonder whether the author would then agree that everyone should receive from the same Host to show we are one Body in Christ.

Well, if you were attempting to gradually overshadow Christ as sole Priest and Victim what would you do to distract people?

Does an assembly line approach look more like a sacrifice or a restuarant kitchen line?

The point of judgement should be, which liturgy better reflects the truths of the faith.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

The Ottaviani intervention was based on an early, unrevised draft of what became the Novus Ordo Missae.

Ottaviani wrote a letter to Paul VI thanking him that his concerns and reservations were addressed in the official version that was promulgated in 1969.

Somehow, this seems to get forgotten. I wonder why?

No. It is not forgotten. It is dismissed or vilified because it does not fit into the agenda of some traditionalists.

 

[AlexV]

The changes occasioned by the Ottaviani Intervention was major on the one hand and trivial on the other. For Bugnini it was a minor setback on his road to obliterate the Roman Rite.

 

[strugglingalong]

No. It is not forgotten. It is dismissed or vilified because it does not fit into the agenda of some traditionalists.

Or…maybe it is a historical fact that it wasn’t genuine? It’s not fair to paint every traditionalist as lacking integrity and honesty.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The following was written by Cardinal Stickler in 2004 upon the event of a new publication of the Ottaviani Intervention:

Dear Friends,

You wish to issue a new edition of the celebrated Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass of Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci.

I can only fervently encourage you in this and I bless your undertaking that it might result in making this important text known to a greater number.

Indeed, the analysis of the “Novus Ordo” made by these two eminent cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, its timeliness.

As a member of the preparatory commissions and an expert in liturgy at the Second Vatican Council, I myself lived through the profound upheavals which followed the liturgical reform.

The decree Sacrosanctum Concilium would seem to suggest a reform in the bosom of the Catholic Church, and not an upheaval accompanied by a hasty fabrication of new rituals. These innovations opened the way too much for those who, perhaps without consciously willing it, would allow, as our pope Paul VI said, “the smoke of Satan” to enter the Church.

The results of the reform are judged by many today to be devastating. This was the merit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to discover very quickly that the radical modification of the rites resulted in a fundamental change of doctrine.

Fortunately, the latin roman Mass so-called of St Pius V has never been forbidden: priests and faithful can always draw from the source of the Lex orandi (law of praying) and in this way live faithfully the Lex credendi (law of believing).

It is, therefore, praiseworthy and useful, as you plan, to make heard once again, 35 years afterwards, the voice of these two princes of the Church, defenders of doctrine, catholic Tradition and the Papacy.

Be assured, dear friends, of my paternal blessing and of my prayers at the tomb of St. Peter.

Signed

Alfons M. Cardinal Stickler S.D.B.
Vatican City, November 27, 2004

 

[ProVobis]

No. It is not forgotten. It is dismissed or vilified because it does not fit into the agenda of some traditionalists.

I don’t consider myself a traditionalist but where’s the consistency here? Someone who spends a few years of serious liturgical study suddenly says (effectively) “never mind” has to raise a few eyebrows, I would think.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I realize that Wikipedia is not always the most reliable source, but here it its entry on the Ottaviani Intervention.

I will ask one thing: while I know it’s possible, did he REALLY go blind in the two months between the time he wrote the cover letter on the Intervention (he did NOT write the Intervention himself) and the time that Paul VI dealt with his objections?

---

The Ottaviani Intervention (or Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass) was a short study of 5 June 1969 sent to Pope Paul VI by Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci with a covering letter dated 25 September 1969. It asked that what they called “the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V” should not be superseded by the revised rite of Mass, which had been promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, and which was due to enter into force at the end of November that year.[1][2]

Main authors of the study were some well-known Roman theologians and university professors, including the Dominican priest Guérard des Lauriers, who worked under the direction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[3]

Shortly afterwards, when Pope Paul VI had spoken at the general audiences of 19[4] and 26[5] November 1969 of the changes in the Mass, Cardinal Ottaviani declared:

I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized [by the new rite's sacrificial character]. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing."[6]

Jean Madiran, a critic of Vatican II,[7] and editor of the French journal Itinéraires, claimed that this letter was fraudulently presented to the elderly and already blind cardinal for his signature by his secretary, Monsignor (and future Cardinal) Gilberto Agustoni, and that Agustoni resigned shortly afterwards.[8] Monsignor Agustoni resigned as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary in 1970 to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota [9], and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment. Furthermore, Jean Madiran admits that he was not in the room to see this alleged deception of Cardinal Ottaviani. [10]

Cardinal Ottaviani at least remained critical of liturgical deviations,[citation needed] as has been the Holy See[11], but was severely weakened physically after 1970 due to blindness and vascular complications. He died on 3 August 1979.