The Ottaviani Intervention

[strugglingalong]

Has everyone here read the Ottaviani Intervention? It’s a letter and critical study of the New Mass sent to the Holy Father by Cards. Ottaviani and Bacci with some other theologians. It can be found here: catholic-pages.com/mass/ottaviani.asp .

I’m curious for those who have read it what they think of it. If you’ve not read it, I highly recommend it! The study makes some very good points. It’s good to remember that Cardinal Ottaviani was head of the Holy Office/CDF so he was not just some theological slouch

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Tina_in_Ashburn]

I’ve read it. Very good. On top of identifying problematic changes in the Liturgy and instructions on the Liturgy, the Cardinal made uncanny predictions on how these changes would affect the Church.

Reading it carefully, I discovered much about the Mass in general that I never knew. Each succinct statement represents a lot of depth that must be read carefully. I had to look up some stuff to understand many of the statements!

I agree that everyone should read this - the document was written by faithful prelates, and is better than some screwy opinions put out by the under-educated and under-catechized.

 

[strugglingalong]

Tina,

Absolutely! I think the Cardinals were very astute in their analysis of the New Mass and the issues they identified still plague the Church to this day. It’s amazing to think that Cardinal Ottaviani was head of the Holy Office! He must have been a very trusted theologian to be placed in that position.

I wish more people would read it and really consider his points.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Dauphin]

This was absolutely devastating to read. How was this allowed to happen??

 

[strugglingalong]

This was absolutely devastating to read. How was this allowed to happen??

Who knows but we know that Christ is the King of His Church. At least know we have the TLM available to most of us and Pope Benedict, God bless him, is doing so much to restore the liturgy. But the study makes astonishing points.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[GerardP]

Ottaviani was an interesting character. He was orthodox in his beliefs but ruthless in his exercise of power. He did everything he could to prevent and thwart Vatican II, probably for a twofold purpose to preserve orthodoxy and also to hold onto power.

He was known to pass his own legislation and say it was the will of John XXIII when in fact it wasn’t. Maybe it should have been but it wasn’t.

There are also a number of funny anecdotes by him and about him. He was late for a council meeting one morning and someone commented that he’d probably hailed a cab and said, “‘Take me to the Council’ after which the cabbie drove him to Trent.”

When told that the liberal German theologians wanted his head, he said, “Well at least they’ll have a brain then”

 

[grandfather]

Ottaviani was an interesting character. He was orthodox in his beliefs but ruthless in his exercise of power. He did everything he could to prevent and thwart Vatican II, probably for a twofold purpose to preserve orthodoxy and also to hold onto power.

He was known to pass his own legislation and say it was the will of John XXIII when in fact it wasn’t. Maybe it should have been but it wasn’t.

There are also a number of funny anecdotes by him and about him. He was late for a council meeting one morning and someone commented that he’d probably hailed a cab and said, “‘Take me to the Council’ after which the cabbie drove him to Trent.”

When told that the liberal German theologians wanted his head, he said, “Well at least they’ll have a brain then”

It does seem that he saw what was coming.

 

[strugglingalong]

There are also a number of funny anecdotes by him and about him. He was late for a council meeting one morning and someone commented that he’d probably hailed a cab and said, “‘Take me to the Council’ after which the cabbie drove him to Trent.”

When told that the liberal German theologians wanted his head, he said, “Well at least they’ll have a brain then”

Those last two are priceless … funny

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[bpbasilphx]

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?

 

[strugglingalong]

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?

Then I find it odd that the majority of the issues in the study remain true and valid for the Novus Ordo that was promulgated. By the way, do you have a source for this letter you speak of?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I found the site I was looking for:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

**Click on III–What about Cardinal Ottaviani?

Here is a pertinent quote:**

<<The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the �Ottaviani Intervention� , publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

<<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. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your �Doctrinal Note� [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.� (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343) >>

**I attend a Melkite parish, so I’m not directly affected by the controversies and perplexities regarding the Pauline Missal (except as regards when when suffer we all suffer).

However, this site might serve to quiet some objections.

It is significant, as I said that Cardinal Ottaviani’s later statments have been ignored by controversialists.**

 

[strugglingalong]

I think the TAN Book version of The Ottaviani Intervention does mention this letter and addresses it but I don’t have it handy…does anyone else? Does it address it?

Thanks!

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Tina_in_Ashburn]

I"m busy avoiding tasks around the house, or i’d look this up…

Isn’t this the thing Ottaviani signed after he had gone blind? Indeed there is controversy about this, and I’m not furthering any arguments here, just saying what was swirling about back then.

The general consensus was that Ottaviani was an obedient prelate who submitted to the Magisterium. But he never meant to retract any of his statements.

Changes were made to the Mass and the Instructions after the bruhaha this letter stirred. Nothing was removed from the New Order but more ‘traditionalist’-sounding text was inserted in the more problematic areas.

Michael Davies described a lot of these happenings at the time.

I stand by my first comment that the Letter is an excellent first source on the differences of the New Order and the old. Everything else is opinion until the Magisterium speaks.

I second Strugglingalong in “the issues in the study remain true”. That’s really the point of this discussion i think.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Would not Ottaviani’s observations (both first and later ones) have been based on the LATIN texts?

I certainly have not seen the first draft of the Latin text, which the Cardinal found objectionable.

And I’m not enough of a Latinist to know how faithful the present English version is to the official Missal. (Except that “et cum spiritu tuo” means “and with your spirit” and “pro multis” means “for many”, but I don’t know about other divergences. Supposedly these are being addressed.)

 

[Tina_in_Ashburn]

Yes, the Intervention was based on the Latin, not the inaccurate ICEL translation we have today here in the States. Also, the priest was not facing the people. There may be other differences too.

So the Intervention was based on a Mass very strictly said without some of the options we see today, and he noted some very grave departures from the Old Mass even so!

 

[AJV]

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).

---

**THE ULTIMATE END: **
The argument using the preface is a bit of a weak one – not least because that would be that in over 75% of Traditional Masses celebrated in a year would have that end missing. Consider also that the particular rubric commanding the use of the Trinity preface on most Sundays was actually commanded two centuries after St. Pius V and would have yielded to other prefaces quite often until St. Pius X. The disappearance from the Offertory I admit. However, when Dom Gerard (who had a substantial hand in this work) was asked: what about the Carthusian liturgy, which omits the Suscipe prayers, he responded: “It shows the Trinitarian sacrifice of praise because of the sign of the cross is made over the offerings”. You can judge the speciousness of that answer.

The Trinitarian objective is achieved through the prayers of the Mass made to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. That is the way Rome traditionally did everything-and the way it is seen in most prayers of the Mass- the prayers directly addressing the Trinity were borrowed from Galician which in turn borrowed them form the East.

**ORDINARY END: **All well and true, but where does it say that the faithful are bound to communicate sacramentally in the NO? It is seems, too, that the author sees emphasis only in certain parts of the GIRM. If for example, he would to look at no. 55 he would find the propitiatory aspect set forth as:

the Church-and in particular the Church here and now assembled-offers the spotless Victim to the Father in the Holy Spirit…… the offering is made for the Church and all its members, living and dead, who are called to share in the salvation and redemption purchased by Christ’s body and blood.

**IMMANENT END: **Does not the idea of exchange, the “commercium”, underline even the Canon? “offerimus praeclarae majestati tuae de tuis dona ac datis hostiam puram, etc.” Or even in the Supplices, Per quem, Te igitur, etc. For example, Dr. Gihr in “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” writes of the Te igitur:

The full meaning of our prayer may thus be expressed: We beseech Thee, O Father, that Thou wouldst accept and bless these material gifts, which we present to Thee, in order that, by the blessing of Consecration, they may become a heavenly healing fountain for the Church.

The same idea is found in some of the “Secrets” of the Traditional Missal e.g. Christmas

May our offering on this day’s feast be acceptable to Thee, O Lord, we beseech Thee: that by Thy bounteous grace, through this sacred intercourse, we may be found like unto Him, in whom our nature is united to Thee

The idea of exchange is not so diametrically opposed as the author would make it seem to be. The Sacrifice offered is still that of Christ – after the bread and wine has been converted into the Body and Blood.

The author writes: “In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.” This seems a little strange to me. It is hard to communicate this without seeming to besmirch the Canon but if anything the alternation between sacrifices applies more to the Canon than to the new Eucharistic Prayers – at least, in the common method of scholastic interpretation. One moment we are speaking of Christ, the next moment of the Church and our prayers. And we speak of the offerings as well. As an illustration, consider the various offerings in the Canon

• haec dona, haec munera – the bread and wine
• haec sancta sacrificia illibata – the same, but by anticipation Christ
• pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis – again the offerings, but by anticipation Christ. Also the prayers
• Hanc oblationem, and Quam oblationem - the offerings as before
• Offerimus praeclarae majestati tuae – the Body and Blood
• Supra Quae – the Church
• Supplices te: again the Church, and the prayers of the people

The meaning of the Eucharistic Prayer: on the contrary the author only takes the first introductory paragraph instead of the whole thing. If one reads on further, one does in fact, find mention of consecrating, offering, etc…

 

[AJV]

**OBLITERATION OF THE ROLE OF THE REAL PRESENCE. **

“The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.” Strictly speaking, this is true- the word is not used. But it is ironic that a footnote quotes the wording of Trent on transubstantiation which the G.I.R.M repeats “. when, under the appearances of bread and wine, He offered His body and blood (IGMR no. 55d)” This phrase “under the appearances of bread and wine” is nothing but transusbtantian, no? Although this paragraph was changed, the same phrase appeared in the 1969 IGMR.

Regarding the suppression of the Veni Sanctificator, perhaps that was in view of the epiclesis in the new prayers. I think the wording of all of them makes it quite clear that the Spirit is invoked “to descend upon the oblations……to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence”. For example, the infamous Prayer II “Let Your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the Body + and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ”

Considering the other things:
It is true (and lamentable) that the genuflections are very much reduced. However, doesn’t the fact that there is a genuflection at all show a belief in the Real Presence? Otherwise, there would be no genuflection.

With regard to the purification of the fingers, the GIRM orders the fingers to be rubbed over the paten if any Particles adhere, and the Particles form the paten are then put into the chalice.

The gliding is not required for sacred vessels ** if the material is more precious than gold** and does not rust.

Technically, a pall is optional but the GIRM contained directions that the chalice was to be covered before with a veil and after also.

Now as regards thanksgivings made kneeling, nowhere is the priest in the Traditional Mass is directed to kneel in an act of thanksgiving. The rubric which may be construed as such has the priest standing. The Ritus servandus goes straight from the ablutions to the postcommunion without mentioning thanksgiving anywhere. Also, the people only “may” sit “if this seems helpful”.(no. 21). No obligation.

THE ROLE OF THE HIGH ALTAR

“The altar is almost always called ‘table’, “The altar or table of the Lord, which is the center of the whole Eucharistic liturgy” (no. 49, Cf. 262)”

The word “Lords’s table” or “table of God” is used 5 times in the ENTIRE IGMR. 2 of those times in a manner similar to this (which the author of the Intervention relegates to a “Cf” above):

At the altar the sacrifice of the cross is made present under sacramental signs. It is also the table of the Lord and the people of God are called together to share in it.

and the other one as given above, and the last when it describes receiving communion from “the table of the Lord”

By contrast in Chapter I alone, altar is used 13 times. So how is altar “almost always called table?”

The Critical Study regards with disfavour the “urging” of the IGMR “that hosts distributed for Communion be ones consecrated at the same Mass” as “the same disparaging attitude towards both the tabernacle and every form of Eucharistic piety outside of Mass. This constitutes a new and violent blow to faith that the Real Presence continues as long as the consecrated Species remain”

Compare with Mediator Dei, by Pius XII

Our predecessor of immortal memory, Benedict XIV, wishing to emphasize and throw fuller light upon the truth that the faithful by receiving the Holy Eucharist become partakers of the divine sacrifice itself, praises the devotion of those who, when attending Mass, not only elicit a desire to receive holy communion but also want to be nourished by hosts consecrated during the Mass, even though, as he himself states, they really and truly take part in the sacrifice should they receive a host which has been duly consecrated at a previous Mass.

He writes as follows: “And although in addition to those to whom the celebrant gives a portion of the Victim he himself has offered in the Mass, they also participate in the same sacrifice to whom a priest distributes the Blessed Sacrament that has been reserved; however, the Church has not for this reason ever forbidden, nor does she now forbid, a celebrant to satisfy the piety and just request of those who, when present at Mass, want to become partakers of the same sacrifice, because they likewise offer it after their own manner, nay more, she approves of it and desires that it should not be omitted and would reprehend those priests through whose fault and negligence this participation would be denied to the faithful.”………

……It is very fitting, as the liturgy otherwise lays down, that the people receive holy communion after the priest has partaken of the divine repast upon the altar; and, as we have written above, they should be commended who, when present at Mass, receive hosts consecrated at the same Mass, so that it is actually verified, “that as many of us, as, at this altar, shall partake of and receive the most holy body and blood of thy Son, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.”

And if the Church did not believe that the Real Presence continues as long as the consecrated Species remain, there would not have been an instruction in the IGMR to genuflect toward the tabernacle or for people to pray in front of it.

 

[AJV]

CONSECRATION FORMULAE:
It would be absurd to say that if one does use the Scriptural (and still the Words in the NO do not correspond exactly for the Consecration of the Chalice: the word aeterni is not in Scripture) that that is grounds that they are not intending those words to be a sacramental one.

There are a number of other liturgies that also use “Hoc facite……”. The Coptic liturgies, some of the Syriac ones, and other liturgies not in use today. To cite a Western liturgy, the Mozarabic. By framing the argument on a semi-theological line, as if to say that “Hoc facite” is faulty, the author is indicting them as well. Does he mean to say that in all these “‘commemoration’ will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action”? The same applies to the memorial acclamations which are also based on other liturgies. Again, one can pick plenty of faults based on the liturgical tradition of Rome. But when one indicts the phrases theologically, it makes me wonder: what would have been the author’s reaction to say, the Mozarabic liturgy, where it is repeated thrice, after each consecration and at the end?

I accept some of the points on the narration but still:

• Who bows when narrating something, and then elevates and genuflects in the middle of his “narration”?
• The GIRM supports the position that the elements are consecrated by the Words e.g.

If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice

Thus the narrative is also clearly meant to be consecratory

But for the sake of argument, say the Words are meant to be recited as narrative. I wish to put forward what Joseph Pohle wrote in his work on Dogmatic Theology. He seems to (correct me if I’m wrong) say that an intention to consecrate is sufficient, as long as there is not a positive contrary intention of the priest NOT to consecrate by the Words. He is treating the case of Eastern Orthodox priests who attribute the consecration to the “epiclesis” and not to the Words

What if a schismatic priest would say Mass with the express intention of consecrating not by the divine words of institution, but by the Epiklesis? If this were generally the case among the schismatic Greeks, should we not be forced to the conclusion that, since the seventeenth century at least, when the Greek Church began officially to connect the Consecration with the Epiklesis, they no longer say Mass validly?

If the minister of a Sacrament performs the prescribed rite conscientiously and with the proper intention, the Sacrament is validly administered and will produce its effects
regardless of any erroneous notions the minister may harbor concerning the essential or non-essential character of this or that part of the form. It may happen among us that a learned and faithful priest is in doubt as to what is essential in the matter or form of a Sacrament. Nevertheless, he administers the Sacrament validly if he has the right intention and conscientiously performs the prescribed rite from beginning to end. Though
the Greeks may in the best of faith go on erroneously maintaining that they consecrate exclusively by the Epiklesis, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, they actually consecrate by means of the words of institution contained in their liturgies, provided, of course, that they really intend to celebrate Mass, of which as a rule there can be no reasonable doubt. Only in the imaginary supposition that a schismatic priest were so filled with hatred against Rome that he would rather not consecrate at all than consecrate by means of the words of institution, should we be justified in concluding that there was a
lack of genuine intention and that, consequently, the Mass was invalid.

As an addendum, I note that the formula of Intention which the priest recites in the sacristy “Ego volo” is the same in both the TLM/EF and the NO/OF.

Finally, the 1970 GIRM does add “and consecration” making it clear.

The anamesis does call to mind: IIRC, the relevant part in the Roman Canon begins “Unde et memores”

THE ROLE OF THE PRIEST
Regarding the special role of the priest, and the supposedly indispensable role of the congregation according to the author, IGMR (1969), I, 4:

The presence and active participation of the people bring out more plainly the ecclesial nature of the celebration. But even when their participation is not possible, the Eucharistic celebration still retains its effectiveness and worth because it is the action of Christ and the Church, in which the priest always acts on behalf of the people’s salvation.

It is not necessarily also, that the “people” in Eucharistic Prayer III must be interpreted as “this congregation”. It could also be interpreted generically as the Church.

And certainly the 1970 (and later) GIRM says that the priest “possesses the power to offer sacrifice” and other similar proofs can be adduced from it.

I’m confused: how exactly is the priest an intercessor with God, in a unique way, in the old Confiteor? Surely not by saying the Misereatur since that is also said by the server. Not by asking for his prayers because he asks for the prayers of the servers/ministers also, which would make them intercessors on his behalf. And surely not by the reference “et tibi Pater” because in the presence of one of greater dignity, he too says when making his confession “et tibi Pater”. If it is because only the priest recites the Indulgentiam, why then, in the NO, the priest only recites the Misereatur.

The disappearance of vestments and “noncommissioned officer”: In fact, when introducing vestments: the IGMR says “In the Church, the Body of Christ, not all members have the same function.”. And it does not allow the omission of the chasuble in ordinary cases.

 

[AJV]

THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH:
It sometimes seems a bit self-contradictory. The author has just finished declaiming against how a certain petition has been attributed to the Church yet he plays down the role of the Church when he comes to treat it. He infers that the Instruction speaks of sanctifying only “those present” when it only says the Eucharistic Prayer is a prayer of sanctification. Items such as “The Church offers the spotless Victim to the Father” are ignored. Then a certain nitpicking takes place:

““The priest celebrant,” it says, “…joins the people to himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Spirit to the Father” --instead of saying that the people join themselves to Christ who offers Himself through the Holy Ghost to the Father.”

Compare with Mediator Dei:

Now it is clear that the faithful offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest from the fact that the minister at the altar, in offering a sacrifice in the name of all His members, represents Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body. Hence the whole Church can rightly be said to offer up the victim through Christ.

But the conclusion that the people offer the sacrifice with the priest himself is not based on the fact that, being members of the Church no less than the priest himself, they perform a visible liturgical rite; for this is the privilege only of the minister who has been divinely appointed to this office:

**rather it is based on the fact that the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with prayers or intention of the priest, **even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father.

Thus the two statements regarding the ‘joining’ of the people, are not opposed, as the author would make them out to be.

The phrase “through Christ our Lord” is only omitted (and that too, may be omitted, at the option of the priest) in the Canon. It occurs elsewhere.

As for the Church militant, the writer of the Critical Study did not have available at the time, the Roman Missal in which this phrase occurs.

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.

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”.

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. 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?

And in the Order for Mass without a server and only the priest, I think the priest still says “The Lord be with you……lift up your hearts……let us give thanks……” at the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer.

Unleavened bread is now required in the IGMR.

As regards concelebration: it was present in the Church long before that, in the second because it is present at the Traditional ordination. Insofar as all the priests stand in persona Christi they are one. 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.

 

[EddieArent]

I found the site I was looking for:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

Click on III–What about Cardinal Ottaviani?

Here is a pertinent quote:

<<The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the �Ottaviani Intervention� , publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

<<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. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your �Doctrinal Note� [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.� (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343) >>

I attend a Melkite parish, so I’m not directly affected by the controversies and perplexities regarding the Pauline Missal (except as regards when when suffer we all suffer).

However, this site might serve to quiet some objections.

It is significant, as I said that Cardinal Ottaviani’s later statments have been ignored by controversialists.

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.