The Ottaviani Intervention

[Emil3]

I think that this is a CRITICAL thread. Frankly, I do not give 2 ‘hoots’ if the ‘ottaviani intervention’ was placed before a blind man or not or if he were ‘coerced’ into accepting the ‘NO’ when the Pope had finally ruled. I do know that some of the posters here such as Dauphin make a heck of alot of sense.

I AM a defender of the Roman Catholic Church but the bride of Christ–permeated with sometimes selfish-wicked-stupid men has lost many souls along the way. Do we have the courage to say that the Protestant/Luther Reformation was a ‘necessary evil’.? I do believe that. While we have always had the promise of Christ re ‘error’ & we have had holy Saints in the darkest of times, does anyone here in their minds & hearts really think that the Church–via the Council of Trent–etc, would have reformed itself in any temporal proximity to when IT WAS FORCED TO?! Yes–sometimes good can and seemingly does come about as a result of evil–If Christ had returned to earth around the time of the BORGIA POPES he would have done alot more table-overturning than he did in the TEMPLE!

I constantly read about and many times argue in defence of my church with others, particularly Orthodox and I believe the Pope to be the Shepard of the entire church–(both lungs)–but the Novus Ordo is in many ways to my heart & mind a ridiculous step into the world of diminishing the sacerdotal nature of the Mass and our form of worship. It is a testament to modern times and the let’s get with it attitude. It is–in essence–a ‘NEW AGE’ form of worship , while VALID but disrespectful to the mystery of the Mass and the HOLY IMMORTAL whom we worship. It varies from parish to parish–guitars sometimes used! Do we not reserve any sense of the AWE?

The DIVINE LITURGY as practiced by the Orthodox & Eastern Catholics makes our ordinary Mass look like a Kansas tent-revival meeting rather than Christs/God’s wonderful gift to us!

Do we wonder why many Eastern Catholics easily turn to re-unite with their Orthodox bretheren?----The Holy–traditional–solemness of their Mass compared to some of our parish Masses shows to the average soul a great disconnect.

I went some years ago to a wedding in a Greek Orthodox Church and the priest took great pains to discuss how the ceremony has been UNCHANGED for 2000 yrs! I honestly feel strange inviting an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox friend to one of our services. Our tradition now serves to acommodate the lowest ‘common denominator’ in a sense. You want to convince one of those people that we are the true Church?—good luck!

YES___YES–I believe but alot of souls have been hurt & discouraged by the ‘NEW AGE’ Mass. Did the Pope have the authority–I GUESS HE DID; but what an unwise thing!

So I do not care if Ottaviani wrote the thesis or Mickey Mouse did; sadly it rings true to me!

 

[Timothysis]

This, of course, ignores the fact the the Roman Canon was universal throughout The West.

Not true at all. Prior to 1570 there were many liturgies that were used throughout the West. As said before, in St. Francis’ time even the diocese of Rome used the Gallican rite. It wasn’t until 1570 that Pope Pius V promulgated his missal and suppressed those liturgies less than 200 years old. Obviously, there were other liturgies used in the West; how can you maintain that the Roman Rite was “universal” when the evidence shows that the contrary is true???

You’re trying to make excuses for the fact that the liturgy, as it is celebrated most commonly today, is totally divorced from Catholic tradition. The reality is that Popes from only 50 years ago would run screaming out of the Novus Ordo as celebrated in the average suburban parish.

This could not be more untrue. The same elements of the Mass are present, differing only in wording. Perhaps you prefer the flowery language of the latin Mass; that’s fine. Perhaps, too, you think the language of the current OF is stilted and not very poetic; that’s fine, too. However, the meat of the Mass is the consecration of the host and wine and here we have the most important substance of the Mass; This Is My Body and This Is My Blood. This is what makes the Eucharistic sacrifice valid, not the silliness of “for many” vs “for all” or the placement of The Mystery of Faith. Indeed, many other valid rites of the Church do not contain “for many” or the phrase “for all;” would you consider their consecrations invalid? What is it with this mindset that we must declare the latin Mass the Mass of All Time when it is very easy and obvious to the most lay historian that this simply is not true.

Lack of dominance doesn’t mean lack of antiquity. The Roman Rite is the authentic Western tradition. Rites which developed along with it or stemmed from it were deviations which have largely died out. In this sense, the Roman Rite is the “Mass of all time”.

The Eucharistic Prayer of St. Hippolytus, pre-dates the Roman Canon. It is this same prayer that Eucharistic Prayer II of the current missal is based. We can, therefore, say that the “antiquity” of Eucharistic Prayer II is greater than the “antiquity” of the Roman Canon. Can we thus call Eucharistic Prayer II The Mass of All Time and Then Some?!?!?

 

[Dauphin]

Not true at all. Prior to 1570 there were many liturgies that were used throughout the West. As said before, in St. Francis’ time even the diocese of Rome used the Gallican rite. It wasn’t until 1570 that Pope Pius V promulgated his missal and suppressed those liturgies less than 200 years old. Obviously, there were other liturgies used in the West; how can you maintain that the Roman Rite was “universal” when the evidence shows that the contrary is true???

I said the Roman Canon, my friend, not the Roman Rite. The Roman Canon, to my knowledge, was present in each of the Rites celebrated in the West.

This could not be more untrue. The same elements of the Mass are present, differing only in wording. Perhaps you prefer the flowery language of the latin Mass; that’s fine. Perhaps, too, you think the language of the current OF is stilted and not very poetic; that’s fine, too. However, the meat of the Mass is the consecration of the host and wine and here we have the most important substance of the Mass; This Is My Body and This Is My Blood. This is what makes the Eucharistic sacrifice valid, not the silliness of “for many” vs “for all” or the placement of The Mystery of Faith. Indeed, many other valid rites of the Church do not contain “for many” or the phrase “for all;” would you consider their consecrations invalid? What is it with this mindset that we must declare the latin Mass the Mass of All Time when it is very easy and obvious to the most lay historian that this simply is not true.

My goodness. You’ve drawn a number of remarkable conclusions from what I said!

I’m speaking of how the liturgy is celebrated. At the sight of the first liturgical dancer, the first altar girl, the first lay reader, the first EMHC, the first bunch of balloons, or any other absurd, fatuous innovation introduced these last 40 years, I have no doubt whatsoever that Pope St. Pius X would come screaming out hurling excommunications. If you think this isn’t very Christ-like, think of what Christ did when He found the temple being profaned.

The Eucharistic Prayer of St. Hippolytus, pre-dates the Roman Canon. It is this same prayer that Eucharistic Prayer II of the current missal is based. We can, therefore, say that the “antiquity” of Eucharistic Prayer II is greater than the “antiquity” of the Roman Canon. Can we thus call Eucharistic Prayer II The Mass of All Time and Then Some?!?!?

The Roman Canon is the patrimony of the Latin Church. What on earth are we doing constructing a frankenstein liturgy out of dead liturgical forms? The liturgy should grow organically - it shouldn’t be reconstituted from long-dead parts!

 

[Emil3]

Not true at all. Prior to 1570 there were many liturgies that were used throughout the West. As said before, in St. Francis’ time even the diocese of Rome used the Gallican rite. It wasn’t until 1570 that Pope Pius V promulgated his missal and suppressed those liturgies less than 200 years old. Obviously, there were other liturgies used in the West; how can you maintain that the Roman Rite was “universal” when the evidence shows that the contrary is true???

This could not be more untrue. The same elements of the Mass are present, differing only in wording. Perhaps you prefer the flowery language of the latin Mass; that’s fine. Perhaps, too, you think the language of the current OF is stilted and not very poetic; that’s fine, too. However, the meat of the Mass is the consecration of the host and wine and here we have the most important substance of the Mass; This Is My Body and This Is My Blood. This is what makes the Eucharistic sacrifice valid, not the silliness of “for many” vs “for all” or the placement of The Mystery of Faith. Indeed, many other valid rites of the Church do not contain “for many” or the phrase “for all;” would you consider their consecrations invalid? What is it with this mindset that we must declare the latin Mass the Mass of All Time when it is very easy and obvious to the most lay historian that this simply is not true.

The Eucharistic Prayer of St. Hippolytus, pre-dates the Roman Canon. It is this same prayer that Eucharistic Prayer II of the current missal is based. We can, therefore, say that the “antiquity” of Eucharistic Prayer II is greater than the “antiquity” of the Roman Canon. Can we thus call Eucharistic Prayer II The Mass of All Time and Then Some?!?!?

The very fact that the Pope–Council of Trent–wanted to organize one Roman Missal was that there was a need for consensus & unity of faith among the Latin West. That Mass–was, in essence the consensus & expression of what ROMAN CATHOLICISM was all about. If someone went to a Mass in Poland and traveled to Portugal, there would be no disparity in the form of worship or the sacred language–(THE HALLMARK)–of the western church====LATIN!

Are we to believe that the rites prior to that Missal were SOOO different?–I don’t think so; they were variants of the sacred WESTERN TRADITION. The Council, in the face of the REFORMATION spreading like wildfire wanted a universality. Yet even after that & to this day other Rites were tolerated such as in small areas, ie: Calabria/Sicily, Portugal, Milan, ETC!

The very opposite has happened with the Novus Ordo. The universal catholicity or our Church has been–to a great degree–erased. If I were traveling to Uganda tomorrow, the Mass there would show no ‘mark’ of universality with mine…am I to learn Swahili to participate? LATIN united our Church!

What will the next ‘Novus Ordo’ bring? Saxaphones in Denmark—Rap Music in California?----Is this our unity which shines to the world?!

 

[ProVobis]

If you look at early printed liturgical books in English (or Latin), pronouns referring to God are not always capitalized–and frequently not even nouns!

They didn’t have as many false gods back then maybe?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, I’ll give it a try. Perhaps the process of latinization in Eastern Catholicism will help provide an example.

Sorry but I do not see how this example works in the way you wish it to.

After all the latinizations were something forced upon the Eastern Catholics Churches from the outside.

This change in the Liturgy of the Latin Church was done from within the Latin Church.

I still fail to see how those bishops who disagree have more weight than the Pope and the majority of bishops.

 

[DavidPalm]

Sorry but I do not see how this example works in the way you wish it to.

After all the latinizations were something forced upon the Eastern Catholics Churches from the outside.

This change in the Liturgy of the Latin Church was done from within the Latin Church.

I still fail to see how those bishops who disagree have more weight than the Pope and the majority of bishops.

Okay, well I’ve done my best to provide a helpful analogy. Perhaps someone else can fill in, if it be deemed useful.

 

[osmond]

…I went some years ago to a wedding in a Greek Orthodox Church and the priest took great pains to discuss how the ceremony has been UNCHANGED for 2000 yrs!

If he actually said that, he’s wrong.

Antiquity is not always better, or even as good.

 

[osmond]

The DIVINE LITURGY as practiced by the Orthodox & Eastern Catholics makes our ordinary Mass look like a Kansas tent-revival meeting rather than Christs/God’s wonderful gift to us!

Every Sunday I attend the Mass of Pope Paul VI and the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. Both are gorgeous gifts from God. Sublime. I totally reject your characterization based on nothing more than personal taste/lack of understanding.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I

The DIVINE LITURGY as practiced by the Orthodox & Eastern Catholics makes our ordinary Mass look like a Kansas tent-revival meeting rather than Christs/God’s wonderful gift to us!

Ouch! I don’t live in Kansas, but there are probably more tent-revival meetings here than there. I have observed them, and they don’t even remotely resemble the NO.

But I will also say that our parish has a lot of converts every year; nearly all from Evangelical or Fundamentalist churches (they’re not quite the same thing). I don’t know every one of them, but as regards those I do know, I will say there were two things (besides personal contact and persuasion) that caused the conversions. First is the clarity and certitude of the Church’s teaching. The Catholic Church provides an anchor of doctrine and morals that protestant churches do not. Second, and most important of all is the Eucharist. When you get down to it, all the tent revival “Come to Jesus” longing is satisfied in an ultimate way by the Eucharist. When they come to realize that, it makes all the difference.

Never have I heard converts’ comment adversely on the liturgical form. Nor have I heard any recent convert who has experienced the TLM say that somehow it represents the “true Church” as they have come to understand it. I will say I have heard a number of protestants comment favorably on the “orderliness”, “centeredness” and “purposefulness” of the Mass, upon having attended the NO. I sometimes don’t think we cradle Catholics realize how different the NO reallly is from most protestant services.

I will admit to loving the TLM and the NO myself.
I will admit that in this area, strange or flippant innovations in the liturgy are unknown.

 

[ASD]

This is such a tired, tired topic.

Viewed narrowly, as discussion of Ottaviani’s criticisms, I guess I know what you mean. But, to be fair, two points:

1. All our lives it has been drummed into us that the new is good and the old was bad. So, when people first discover something like Ottaviani Intervention, which suggests that the party line is, um, incomplete, it’s a big event. Then they want to go off and post about it, etc.
2. VII and new missal are arguably the most important historical events of our lifetime. How can we ever get over it?

I want as much of the Bible as possible.

Me, too. But, I wouldn’t say that the new lectionary is a great way to get it. Is there any evidence that new lectionary has succeeded, on its own terms? Try this little experiment: Approach a Catholic whom you know is exposed to Bible only through OF Liturgy of the Word (LOW) and ask some questions. E.g., since this is Year B, start a conversation comparing OT and Psalms used during Advent in Year A to those used in Year B.

Apart from the fact that it doesn’t seem to succeed on its own terms, sometimes I’m afraid the whole LOW Bible Study thing has really distorted our understanding of the Mass. That is, sometimes I think it was much better when the Mass clearly centered on the sacrificial altar.

But, the new lectionary has given me an idea. :newidea: I think Shakespeare is really worthwhile and we should all know his work better. So, here’s my proposal:

Let’s have a lady from the neighborhbood read a little to us each week. Each week she’ll read half a speech from Polonius, then a snatch or two from a sonnet, then most of one speech from one of the history plays (edited appropriately to be gender inclusive, remove all references to sin or wrongdoing, &c). Then, a gent who studied Shakespeare for a year at University will discuss all three for a total of 15 minutes, with a few jokes & TV allusions thrown in. And so on each week, text fragments varied appropriately.

Wouldn’t that be a great way to improve our understanding and appreciation of Shakespeare?

I want as much of the Bible as possible. The great majority of Catholics clearly want that as well.

I wish there was a hobby horse emoticon I could put right here where I ask: What is your evidence for what the “great majority of Catholics clearly want?” IMHO, it’s time to get past mere assertions about how great things are now. Let’s have some facts, numbers, evidence.

Every Sunday I attend the Mass of Pope Paul VI and the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. Both are gorgeous gifts from God. Sublime. I totally reject your characterization based on nothing more than personal taste/lack of understanding.

That remark is hard to understand.

1. If we could summarize the traditionalist attitude toward liturgy in a few words, it would be precisely: This is not a matter of taste.
2. I have not detected notable lack of understanding in responses posted here.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Emil3]

Every Sunday I attend the Mass of Pope Paul VI and the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. Both are gorgeous gifts from God. Sublime. I totally reject your characterization based on nothing more than personal taste/lack of understanding.

“PERSONAL TASTE/LACK OF UNDERSTANDING”?
PLEASE:

Does nobody READ the posts of others or does one stay–like a tiger in the bushes–so ready to pounce upon the arguement/thesis of a fellow poster that proper dialogue/reason/common sense & courtesy are thrown to the 4 winds?! I dare say–with regret–that it is YOU who does not have a grasp of the enormity of this change and it’s subsequent dangers. I notice that the more ‘salient/concrete’ elements of my posts & those with whom I agree ARE NOT ADDRESSED. This has nothing to do with my personal taste and as far as understanding the issue, I think I read and discern the ‘King’s English’ quite well.

Some posts concerning this matter, both on this thread and on another thread simultaneously running on the forum make me think back to the days of Martin Luther when he was riled up about the disgraceful selling of indulgences under Cardinal Tetzel. How many just sat back–within our Church–NOT LISTENING while a gathering storm was about to affect almost every man/woman/child in Europe for centuries to come.

No wonder alot of protestant evangelicals are joining one posters parish----we have indeed made it comfortable to make a relatively easy transition—and at what price!?

As a Catholic I am not under pain of mortal sin to state that this Novus Ordo may—in generations to come—be seen to have been a most horrible mistake!

 

[ASD]

… caused the conversions. First is the clarity and certitude of the Church’s teaching. The Catholic Church provides an anchor of doctrine and morals that protestant churches do not. Second, and most important of all is the Eucharist. When you get down to it, all the tent revival “Come to Jesus” longing is satisfied in an ultimate way by the Eucharist. When they come to realize that, it makes all the difference.

Nicely put.

Never have I heard converts’ comment adversely on the liturgical form. Nor have I heard any recent convert who has experienced the TLM say that somehow it represents the “true Church” as they have come to understand it.

I’m not sure what that proves. An equally inconclusive observation: I think the old Mass had much to do with conversion of, e.g., Dorothy Day. But, she was an Episcopalian, I think.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The rest of the rest of the story (not mentioned at the link above) is that there is some question whether Card. Ottaviani actually knowingly signed the letter in question; a public accusation was made by Jean Madiran, editor of the French journal Itineraires, that the cardinal’s secretary had obtained his signature fraudulently (link).

**I suppose that there is no chance that the original Ottaviani letter is the fraudulent one, is there?

Could it be that some people say the second one is fraudulent because they don’t like what it says?**

No.

That would really be a ridiculous suggestion from someone who read the letter and knew all the facts.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

This is a fallacy in itself. The “traditional Latin Mass of all time” never really existed for “all time.” It was St. Francis who revived the practice of the Roman Rite in the 13th century for his order. At that time, the diocese of Rome used the Gallican rite, as did most other countries in the latin west and each had their variations according to locality and customs. It wasn’t until Pope Pius V promulgated his missal in 1570 that all diocese were obligated to use the Roman Rite and all other rites that were established less than 200 years prior were suppressed.

So this argument that the “traditional Latin Mass of all time” is superior to anything else by virtue of its ancientness is false; it has only been dominate for the latest 500 years of Church history. By my reckoning, that leaves another 1500 years to examine.

How can you have been around here so long and still know so little about the Gregorian Mass? Its basic form is unchanged since the 6th century - that’s the fact, man.

The new Mass, on the other hand (which I attend 2-4 times/week), was built by a committee and is frequently “banal”, according to the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How can you have been around here so long and still know so little about the Gregorian Mass? Its basic form is unchanged since the 6th century - that’s the fact, man.

This is debatable but the fact is that this was not the Mass of the Latin Church until after the Council of Trent mandated its usage by the whole Latin Church.

I would also add that the 1962 Missal is not that Mass as there have been additions and modifications. Even recently the Holy Father made modifications.

 

[603304529]

This is debatable but the fact is that this was not the Mass of the Latin Church until after the Council of Trent mandated its usage by the whole Latin Church.

I would also add that the 1962 Missal is not that Mass as there have been additions and modifications. Even recently the Holy Father made modifications.

Please. The Council of Trent merely codified the Mass. The whole point of the exercise was to conform the various different rites (or disciplines or whatever), into one, uniform, universal Mass. It didn’t change things for most people. The different rites or ways of saying Mass before the Council would have closely resembled the Mass as codified by Trent.

Any changes since the Council of Trent, until '69, were very minor, ORGANIC, changes.

Can anyone here say that the NO Mass was an organic development of the old Mass, whilst keeping a straight face??? I think not!

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

This is debatable but the fact is that this was not the Mass of the Latin Church until after the Council of Trent mandated its usage by the whole Latin Church.

I would also add that the 1962 Missal is not that Mass as there have been additions and modifications. Even recently the Holy Father made modifications.

Point is that the structure and content of the Mass from the time of Gregory underwent only gentle, gradual changes. Would you agree with that?

The architects of the new Mass themselves stated (bragged) that it was totally new; a total break with tradition. “The Roman Rite is dead.”

 

[ProVobis]

I would also add that the 1962 Missal is not that Mass as there have been additions and modifications. Even recently the Holy Father made modifications.

I have no problem following the EF with my 1942 Missal. Is the problem severe enough that people are finding the smallest deviation of it very detrimental to their faith?

 

[osmond]

“PERSONAL TASTE/LACK OF UNDERSTANDING”?
PLEASE:

Does nobody READ the posts of others or does one stay–like a tiger in the bushes–so ready to pounce upon the arguement/thesis of a fellow poster that proper dialogue/reason/common sense & courtesy are thrown to the 4 winds?! I dare say–with regret–that it is YOU who does not have a grasp of the enormity of this change and it’s subsequent dangers. I notice that the more ‘salient/concrete’ elements of my posts & those with whom I agree ARE NOT ADDRESSED. This has nothing to do with my personal taste and as far as understanding the issue, I think I read and discern the ‘King’s English’ quite well.

Some posts concerning this matter, both on this thread and on another thread simultaneously running on the forum make me think back to the days of Martin Luther when he was riled up about the disgraceful selling of indulgences under Cardinal Tetzel. How many just sat back–within our Church–NOT LISTENING while a gathering storm was about to affect almost every man/woman/child in Europe for centuries to come.

No wonder alot of protestant evangelicals are joining one posters parish----we have indeed made it comfortable to make a relatively easy transition—and at what price!?

As a Catholic I am not under pain of mortal sin to state that this Novus Ordo may—in generations to come—be seen to have been a most horrible mistake!

Just what in the heck are you talking about? You typed:

The DIVINE LITURGY as practiced by the Orthodox & Eastern Catholics makes our ordinary Mass look like a Kansas tent-revival meeting rather than Christs/God’s wonderful gift to us!

To which I responded:

Every Sunday I attend the Mass of Pope Paul VI and the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. Both are gorgeous gifts from God. Sublime. I totally reject your characterization based on nothing more than personal taste/lack of understanding.

Let me put it another way. You are wrong. The only reason I even responded is because I am in love with both of God’s gifts – the Mass of Pope Paul VI and the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. For you to come on here and make such a preposterous proclamation is not only wholly inaccurate, it’s also deeply offensive.