The Ottaviani Intervention

[bpbasilphx]

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.

**Not in all languages. In pre-Nikonian slavonic, for example, only initial words of sentences are capitalized.

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!**

 

[Dauphin]

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.

This, of course, ignores the fact the the Roman Canon was universal throughout The West. It is the undeniable patrimony of the Latin Church, and it has all but vanished.

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.

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.

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”.

 

[Frosty]

Every time I see statements calling the Mass of Pius V “the Mass of all time” or “the Mass which has been handed down to us intact for two thousand years” or other similar statements I can only wonder why, considering the importance of the liturgy as the center of our Catholic Faith, those who constantly parrot these myths are happy to do so. Instead of just going along with the flow like mindless robots, why not do a bit of research on the subject or listen to people who actually do know the truth about the history of the Mass?
I am certainly not a liturgical scholar but it doesn’t take a doctorate in Theology or Liturgical Studies to read the documents of the Council of Trent and particularly Pope Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution, " Quo Primum", to realize that the Mass Pius V promulgated was not exactly the same as had been “always” celebrated. It was not even exactly the same as that which was the norm in Rome previously.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Does this not sound like changes were made to the Mass? Even then, there was a concern to bring the Mass back to its earlier forms according to the materials available in the 16th C.

***This new rite ***alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years

,

The bolded words sound familiar don;t they? It would be interesting to know how long people called the Tridentine Mass the Novus Ordo? After all, the Pope who promulgated that Mass uses those very words himself! It sure sounds to me that Pius V considered this Mass different in some ways than that which had preceded it otherwise why would he have used the words “Novus Ordo” ?

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm

 

[Dauphin]

Every time I see statements calling the Mass of Pius V “the Mass of all time” or “the Mass which has been handed down to us intact for two thousand years” or other similar statements I can only wonder why, considering the importance of the liturgy as the center of our Catholic Faith, those who constantly parrot these myths are happy to do so. Instead of just going along with the flow like mindless robots, why not do a bit of research on the subject or listen to people who actually do know the truth about the history of the Mass?
I am certainly not a liturgical scholar but it doesn’t take a doctorate in Theology or Liturgical Studies to read the documents of the Council of Trent and particularly Pope Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution, " Quo Primum", to realize that the Mass Pius V promulgated was not exactly the same as had been “always” celebrated. It was not even exactly the same as that which was the norm in Rome previously.

No one will seriously propose that there was no organic development of the Roman Missal. Calling it the “Mass of all time” refers to its historical continuity with the traditional liturgy of the Latin Rite. It refers to its spirit of conformity with the apostolic tradition, and its refusal of innovations contrary to the liturgy’s spirit.

Does this not sound like changes were made to the Mass? Even then, there was a concern to bring the Mass back to its earlier forms according to the materials available in the 16th C.

Their concern was to return to a form which more authentically cleaved to the traditional Roman Rite. They wanted to uncover the authentic western tradition by suppressing or minimizing Rites which had developed parallel to it.

The bolded words sound familiar don;t they?

Yes, the Second Vatican Council mandated a revision of the Roman Missal. It also mandated the retention of the Latin and “pride of place” for Gregorian Chant.

The reform it called for was similar to what Trent did. The Church ended up with something completely different.

It sure sounds to me that Pius V considered this Mass different in some ways than that which had preceded it otherwise why would he have used the words “Novus Ordo” ?

If you look at the 1474 Missal, it is almost identical to the 1570 Missal. The Council of Trent ordered a revision of the Missal, and universalized the Roman Rite. It did not invent a new Mass or mandate that a new Mass be invented.

This is totally different from what happened following the Second Vatican Council. If you compare the 1962 and 1969 Missals, there is very little resemblance. If you think that this was anything like what happened after the Council of Trent, or was even in accord with the will of the Second Vatican Council, then you’re fooling yourself.

 

[osmond]

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”…

Sure:

• Far easier to understand and follow “real time” without the use of a missalette (not that missalettes help all that much.)
• Penitential rite where everyone takes part, not just the celebrant and altar boys.
• Additional reading cycles – 3 instead of 1.
• Additional Bible reading at Sunday Masses.
• Chanted responsorial Psalm.
• Homily instead of sermon.
• Selection of more than one EP including the gorgeous Marian EPs to better tailor Masses for given days.
• Sign of peace. (It’s done with great reverence at my parish and yes, it is important.)
• Communion under both species far more common.
• Communion possible from the chalice for the laity.

There you go, that’s a quick 10…

 

[osmond]

Why so?

Because of the material some ignore in order to follow SOME of the O.I.

 

[Dauphin]

Sure:

• Far easier to understand and follow “real time” without the use of a missalette (not that missalettes help all that much.)

Ease of understanding develops with time. This Mass is intended for someone to attend their entire life. I’ve been attending it (only infrequently, sadly) for only a year I can follow it perfectly. Try reviewing the propers before Mass.

• Penitential rite where everyone takes part, not just the celebrant and altar boys.

This implies that silent participation is not true participation, which is incorrect. Interior participation is just as genuine as exterior.

• Additional reading cycles – 3 instead of 1.
• Additional Bible reading at Sunday Masses.

This is really the same point. The 3-year cycle was invented to accomodate the additional readings.

It could be just as easily said that the smaller number of readings allowed us to become intimately familiar with the most poignant parts of scripture. Having the same cycle each year has its merits. The 3-year cycle was an innovation which shows disrespect for the western tradition, and implies that our forebears were somehow impoverished.

• Homily instead of sermon.

There’s a difference?

• Selection of more than one EP including the gorgeous Marian EPs to better tailor Masses for given days.

A useless innovation, disrespectful of tradition. The Roman Canon is the patrimony of the Latin Rite, and is a perfect doctrinal exposition of the Mass. To relegate it to the background is an unprecedented move. The Roman Canon had nourished the Church exclusively for 1500 years.

Such a massive and stunning change had to have been called for by an Ecumenical Council, but Vatican II mandated no such thing.

• Sign of peace. (It’s done with great reverence at my parish and yes, it is important.)

The sign of peace is done also at the TLM. The priest, holding the Eucharist, communicates the peace of Christ to the faithful.

• Communion under both species far more common.
• Communion possible from the chalice for the laity.

Superior as a sign, certainly, but carries a danger of spillage. This is why it was discontinued in the West and transformed into instinction in the East.

 

[m134e5]

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”…

I have to admit it is nice to be able to hear the words of consecration. I also like hearing a homily about the readings, rather than a sermon about whatever the priest feels like talking about- which may have no relation to the readings, the feast day, or the liturgical season whatsoever.

I also love the Tridentine Mass- when it is done well (I have been to ones that have been done badly- and would take a reverent Novus Ordo over a Tridentine Mass full of mistakes any day).

 

[PaulAndrew83]

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?**

Davids Link:

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.

The original intervention was signed by Cardinal Bacci as well.

Paul

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

fisheaters.com, while having useful information, is not loyal to the Magisterium:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915

And you’ll see Catholicculture.org does not “pick” on traditionalists:

http://www.catholicculture.org/sear...wserate&fidelity=red&resources=0&useability=0

 

[603304529]

fisheaters.com, while having useful information, is not loyal to the Magisterium:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915

And you’ll see Catholicculture.org does not “pick” on traditionalists:

http://www.catholicculture.org/sear...wserate&fidelity=red&resources=0&useability=0

Fisheaters has simply reproduced the Ottaviani Intervention, as it was written and signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, and Bacci, waay back in the day.

Whether or not these people at CatholicCulture approve of fisheaters is completely irrelevant.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Fisheaters has simply reproduced the Ottaviani Intervention, as it was written and signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, and Bacci, waay back in the day.

And they conveniently ignored Cardinal Ottaviani’s later statements.

 

[603304529]

Fisheaters has simply reproduced the Ottaviani Intervention, as it was written and signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, and Bacci, waay back in the day.

And they conveniently ignored Cardinal Ottaviani’s later statements.

BpBasilphx,

Please check your facts. As found at the bottom of the page to which I linked:
"
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. "

So, no, they did not ignore it.

 

[DavidPalm]

As I and others pointed out, at the very least Cardinal Bacci never retracted his support of the document. Scholars of the stature of Dietrich von Hildebrand found the analysis of the OI to be compelling. Indeed, many of its observations have been taken up and extended by serious liturgical scholars such as Msgr. Klaus Gamber.

I’m not contributing to this thread to be part of a bash the NOM spree; that doesn’t interest me. But the thread is about the Ottaviani Intervention and I will predict that, when the smoke has cleared, liturgical sanity has returned to the Catholic Church at large, and sober scholars sit down to write dispassionate histories of the liturgical revolution and counter-revolution, the Ottaviani Intervention will be regularly cited as a highly significant source. (And I think I can equally guarantee that the Likoudis/Whitehead book will not ).

 

[TMC]

This is such a tired, tired topic.

The Pope received some (strongly voiced) advice from some of his staff and from other bishops on the form of the Novus Ordo. He accepted some of the advice and not other bits. Some of the advice givers were satisfied, some were not.

Since that time, three Popes, nine Prefects for the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, three Prefects for the Doctrine of the Faith and countless priests and bishops have all held the NO valid.

But some still suggest that because the Pope did not follow all the advice given by those few subordinates, the NO is somehow invalid.

Does anyone seriously think that makes any sense?

 

[DavidPalm]

This is not about validity and never has been. That’s a red herring.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is not about validity and never has been. That’s a red herring.

Then what is it about? I am still trying to figure this out.

Just that some criticized the Mass?

Then why do we not start a thread where Bishops have criticized the EF Mass?

 

[Like]

BpBasilphx,

Please check your facts. As found at the bottom of the page to which I linked:
"
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:

**traditio is also on Catholic Culture DANGER list.
** catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3455

 

[DavidPalm]

Then what is it about? I am still trying to figure this out. Just that some criticized the Mass?

Well, I’ll give it a try. Perhaps the process of latinization in Eastern Catholicism will help provide an example. Perhaps you’ll agree that the inclusion–whether by force, ignorance, or misguided zeal–of Western traditions (albeit Catholic ones) into the liturgical lives of Eastern Catholics often brought about a confusion, disorientation, and contention that was in the main harmful and negative. Now imagine the upheaval if you multiplied that by one hundred, if every prayer in the Divine Liturgy was rewritten, many of the rubrics changed, the posture of the priest changed, the language of the liturgy changed, and all sorts of new gestures and prayers were imported from sources that were perhaps Eastern but long extinct (i.e. artificially resurrected), some not Eastern at all but Western, and some perhaps not even Catholic (albeit not unorthodox per se). One might expect this to bring about confusion, disorientation, and contention amongst the faithful.

Well, as studies like the OI and books by the late Michael Davies (RIP) and Klaus Gamber (RIP), et al. have sought to demonstrate, something very much like that happened in the creation and promulgation of the Pauline rite. As even our Holy Father stated while Cardinal Ratzinger, the stream of organic development was broken and the creation of an “artificial” liturgy ended up giving the impression that everything was in our power to change. The argument goes that at least some (significant) portion of the confusion, disorientation, and contention that came about after the Council resulted from this historically radical change in the liturgy. And not just from abuses–which of course compounded the problem–but from the official changes themselves which, while not invalidating the Mass, were from any historical vantage truly radical. That is why you have men like Dietrich von Hildebrand stating that in his opinion the promulgation of the NOM was much more harmful to the Church than something like a Concordat with Hitler.

That’s the way the argument goes, anyway. As you may suspect, I personally agree with such an analysis. In the abstract, it’s a discussion worth having because those who do not learn from mistakes are doomed to repeat them. But I’d rather direct you to some specific sources for more information, if you’re inclined to look into it more, rather than hashing it all out here. I really must personally stay away from a lot of criticism of the NOM.

Then why do we not start a thread where Bishops have criticized the EF Mass?

If it suits you, why not start just such a thread? It may generate an interesting discussion.

 

[osmond]

Ease of understanding develops with time. This Mass is intended for someone to attend their entire life. I’ve been attending it (only infrequently, sadly) for only a year I can follow it perfectly. Try reviewing the propers before Mass.

After attending the EF for years it’s still not nearly as fluid. Not even close. It never will be either.

This implies that silent participation is not true participation, which is incorrect. Interior participation is just as genuine as exterior.

No it doesn’t imply that. It implies that taking part as a group and confessing our sins as a community with immediate, material feedback is extremely important.

This is really the same point. The 3-year cycle was invented to accomodate the additional readings.

Actually it was not. The three-year cycle was invented to give far more exposure to the Bible.

It could be just as easily said that the smaller number of readings allowed us to become intimately familiar with the most poignant parts of scripture. Having the same cycle each year has its merits. The 3-year cycle was an innovation which shows disrespect for the western tradition, and implies that our forebears were somehow impoverished.

I want as much of the Bible as possible. The great majority of Catholics clearly want that as well. The old single cycle has few if any merits except antiquity.

There’s a difference?

Sermon: based on anything. Homily: focused on readings of the day.

A useless innovation, disrespectful of tradition. The Roman Canon is the patrimony of the Latin Rite, and is a perfect doctrinal exposition of the Mass. To relegate it to the background is an unprecedented move. The Roman Canon had nourished the Church exclusively for 1500 years. Such a massive and stunning change had to have been called for by an Ecumenical Council, but Vatican II mandated no such thing.

And I reject your personal opinion. The added EPs (particularly in my opinion the Marian EPs) are a wonderful gift of the OF. A truly sublime gift. I often attend Mass on Saturday mornings. The Marian votive Masses not only nourish me in a very special way, they help prepare me for Sunday.

The sign of peace is done also at the TLM. The priest, holding the Eucharist, communicates the peace of Christ to the faithful.

Yet they do not do that amongst themselves. That is critically important as well as a parish.

Superior as a sign, certainly, but carries a danger of spillage. This is why it was discontinued in the West and transformed into instinction in the East.

Thanks be to God that the laity are now often offered the chalice.