The Ottaviani Intervention

  • Thread starter Thread starter 603304529
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6

603304529

Guest
I have mentioned previously in my posts “The Ottaviani Intervention”.

It can be found online:

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

It is quite brief and very easy to read: so there’s little excuse for not having read this most informing little nugget.
 
Thank you. I read this in print several years ago. It was interesting.
 
But there’s ANOTHER chapter to the Ottaviani intervention that most traditionalists won’t tell you. In fairness, maybe they don’t know themselves.

Go here:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

and now you will know the REST of the story!

BTW–I attend the local Melkite parish, so I don’t have a vested interest in the argument one way or the other, except I wish to see peace and those with bewildered or hurt feelings on either side comforted and reconciled.
 
bpbasilphx said:
But there’s ANOTHER chapter to the Ottaviani intervention that most traditionalists won’t tell you. In fairness, maybe they don’t know themselves.

Go here:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

and now you will know the REST of the story!

BTW–I attend the local Melkite parish, so I don’t have a vested interest in the argument one way or the other, except I wish to see peace and those with bewildered or hurt feelings on either side comforted and reconciled.
Click to expand...
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). Also not mentioned at the link above is that Cardinal Bacci, at least, never retracted his critique of the NOM. And, it could be said, many of the criticisms of the NOM contained in the Ottaviani Intervention (and many more besides) may be found in the very important book by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background. None other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger called Msgr. Gamber, “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.”

So, at the very least it cannot be said that in itself public criticism of the NOM places one under suspicion of being of being a less than faithful Catholic. Not that anybody here did that. 😉
 
Whenever anyone brings up the “Ottaviani Intervention” in real life around here, it’s a sure sign their comments are not to be taken seriously.
 
Whilst it may be true the NO has deficits this piece of evidence is hardly decisive because of the subsequent comments by Cardinal Ottaviani (even though they may be slightly dubious. But the fact that he didn’t speak out against his secretary “stealing” his signature seems to me to cast doubts on doubting. :))

Also, why does his opinion about the deficiencies of the NO trump the opinion of many cardinals today about the merits of the NO?

In Christ,

JD
 
Johndigger said:
Whilst it may be true the NO has deficits this piece of evidence is hardly decisive because of the subsequent comments by Cardinal Ottaviani (even though they may be slightly dubious. But the fact that he didn’t speak out against his secretary “stealing” his signature seems to me to cast doubts on doubting. :))

Also, why does his opinion about the deficiencies of the NO trump the opinion of many cardinals today about the merits of the NO?

In Christ,

JD
Click to expand...
There’s merits of the NO??? That’s the first I’ve heard of such a thing! Can anyone give me an example? And I’m not talking about “active lay participation”…
 
There’s merits of the NO??? That’s the first I’ve heard of such a thing! Can anyone give me an example? And I’m not talking about “active lay participation”…

**Your statement above is about on the level is “What’s 2 plus 2? And don’t you DARE say 4.”
  1. Yes, I will say active participation from the congregation. I like to say–or preferably, sing–the responses and other hymns of the Sacrifice out loud without being given the hairy eyeball, as has happened when at the EF. (Language is not really an issue for me.)
  2. From my Eastern viewpoint, the vernacular is a good thing. (This is not to say that any translation of any rite cannot be improved.)
  3. Likewise, from the same viewpoint, being able to receive in both Species is a good thing.
  4. Concelebration can be beautiful.
An improvement I’d like to see in how the OF is celebrated: more incense, and hearing the Collects and Readings chanted in their traditional melodies. It can be done; I’ve done it myself in English.

And speaking as someone from the outside looking in, should there not be an official US Latin Rite Catholic hymnal by now? (Some modern hymns, I admit are icky–but others are very good.)

Like many people here, I’ve heard some horror stories about irreverently celebrated OF masses. However, I’ve never actually seen such. OTOH, I’ve seen the OF celebrated in Latin (except for the readings) with Gregorian Chant.

But these problems are not with the OF itself, but how it gets celebrated in some places. And many of these abuses are not because of the OF, but despite clear directions and instructions about such matters.

**
 
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?**
 
603304529 said:
There’s merits of the NO??? That’s the first I’ve heard of such a thing! Can anyone give me an example? And I’m not talking about “active lay participation”…
Click to expand...
The changing of bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I can think of others, but they all pale in comparison.
 
osmond said:
Whenever anyone brings up the “Ottaviani Intervention” in real life around here, it’s a sure sign their comments are not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Ottaviani was a serious theologian/bishop. He held the same position as Cardinal Ratzinger held under pope John Paul II. You can’t simply ignore him.
 
Here is an interesting quote from Dietrich von Hildebrand on the topic at hand (this from his 1973 book The Devastated Vineyard, in the chapter entitled “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference”) I wonder if his comments can be taken seriously 😉 :
I cannot deny that I deeply regretted the Concordat of the Holy See with Hitler’s Germany under Pius XI, which was signed in April 1933. I believed then that this Concordat would confuse many Catholics in Germany and would never be taken seriously by the Nazis. Unfortunately, events proved that I was right.
Click to expand...
Nor can I conceal—and here we are returning to the point from which we started—the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottaviani—a true rock of orthodoxy—and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottaviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass.
Click to expand...
On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition of the essence and raison d’etre of Holy Mass as given by the Council of Trent. Consequently it must be feared that in their sermons, many priests will be encouraged to emphasize the character of the “assembly of the people of God” at the cost of both the mystery of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the ineffable gift for every individual soul granted in the sacrament of the Eucharist—faith in which is already menaced by certain heretical trends rampant in the Church. . . .
Click to expand...
Thus I hope and pray that the Tridentine Mass will not be abolished, but will continue to be celebrated side by side with the new Ordo. Furthermore, I hope and pray that in the course of time, its superiority, from the pastoral as well as the doctrinal standpoint, will be recognized by the Holy See, and that in the future the Tridentine Mass will be reinstated as the official liturgy of the holy Mass in the Western Church.
Click to expand...
 
TheDoctor said:
The changing of bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I can think of others, but they all pale in comparison.
Click to expand...
I was talking about merits over and above the traditional Latin Mass of all time.

And if we are talking about the same Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Catholic should at least grant Him capital letters: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…
 
603304529 said:
I was talking about merits over and above the traditional Latin Mass of all time.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I was talking about merits over and above the traditional Latin Mass of all time.

**No one Eucharistic rite is the “mass of all time” or can claim to be called this.

ALL authorized liturgies for the Eucharistic Sacrifice are Masses for All time.

Or are you thinking that the Latin Mass makes stronger juju or something?**
 
**
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoctor View Post
The changing of bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. I can think of others, but they all pale in comparison.
I was talking about merits over and above the traditional Latin Mass of all time.

And if we are talking about the same Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Catholic should at least grant Him capital letters: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…**

**So the Kingdom of God has now become a matter of capitization and spelling?

You might want to see the Latin Text does.**
 
jimmy said:
Ottaviani was a serious theologian/bishop. He held the same position as Cardinal Ratzinger held under pope John Paul II. You can’t simply ignore him.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t the same be said about the Pope? After all he gets the last say.
 
bpbasilphx said:
**

And if we are talking about the same Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Catholic should at least grant Him capital letters: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity…**

So the Kingdom of God has now become a matter of capitization and spelling?
/B]

A very poor argument. Capitalizing all Pronouns and Nouns referring to Christ is a convention in the English language and I think a good one. Aside from the obvious respect for the Christ, it avoids any problems with modification. I notice you didn’t write god for God.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top