The Ottaviani Intervention

[arieh0310]

Cardinal Ottaviani had long since retired from his position as prefect of the Holy Office, so his intervention was simply not in that capacity. It had nothing to do with the Holy Office.

I stand corrected. He was prefect of the Holy Office until 1966 and pro-prefect of the CDF until 1968.

 

[vadermanu89]

I have never seen any substantial proof that this is true.

May I suggest a reading of numerous Catholic Apologetics articles with regards to the Pauline Mass? There you will find numerous evidences of ‘restoration’ and it destroys any allegations of innovations.

The “Handshake of Comradeship” which bears no resemblance to the ancient Kiss of Peace?

The Church in restoring the liturgy restored this ancient rubric by extending the practice to the people exchanging the Kiss of Peace also as it was done in the early Church. However, the Rite of Peace is admittedly abused but again that does not mean that the idea itself is a bad one. Incidentally the 'handshake Of Comradeship" is not a term used in any rubrics in the Pauline Missal.

The heavy influence of Hippolytus who (wrote his “Apostolic Tradition” as an anti-pope)?

St. Hippolytus was entirely orthodox when it came to the liturgy. His primary argument with the Church authorities in his day was over the leniency with which repentant apostates were being reconciled to the Roman Church. He wanted stricter standards of discipline to be fully sure of the orthodoxy of his new converts. Unfortunately, he set himself up as antiPope to the reigning Popes. In essence, he was very much like Archbishop Lefebvre. The main difference between them is that St. Hippolytus was eventually reconciled to the Church before he died as a martyr.

Essentially, his Canon of the Liturgy was used by the Roman Church for a couple of centuries and was even adopted by the Ethiopians. Would you have the nerve to claim that the Masses of Rome and the various Eastern Churches in that era was illicit?

Even if there were any true returns to an ancient liturgy, that ideology was condemned by Mediator Dei (paragraph 64) and nowhere mentioned in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Perhaps you missed this substantial bit in the Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself… For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

The intrinsic purpose behind the Pauline Mass was to present a genuine ‘restored’ Mass that combines useful aspects of the Roman Canon and the ancient disciplines and prayers. There is nothing evil about that.

Older is not necessarily better (especially since we have to rely on the waffling opinions of historians

But neither is it necessarily worse.

 

[stmaria]

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 novus ordo] and the activity of the militia sanctae mariae wide diffusion and success." – Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani

Many of the so called changes on the Pauline Mass was a genuine restoration of the ancient liturgies. It may seem alien to those steep in the Tridentine and Gelasian Rites as those ancient aspects were lost throughout the centuries and various liturgical upheavels. In this text, the Cardinal clearly states that he find no legitmate reason why the mass reforms were illicit. Perhaps an audience with pope Paul VI and with various liturgical theologicans may have proven to him how this so called innovations were truly ancient practices brought to life.

Don’t ignore this part of his letter to Pope Paul
“As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken **to solve some legitimate perplexities **which the text is capable of arousing”

Cardinal Ottaviani also mentions the speech of November 26 some of which is here.

Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969: "1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the **liturgical innovation **of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

1. A new rite of the Mass: **a change in a venerable tradition **that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past [indeed], which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
2. …This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed…
3. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every** novelty **that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
4. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves.** This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church**…
5. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.** We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders i**n the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
6. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that** language of the angels? **We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values

 

[stmaria]

=vadermanu89;3072802]May I suggest a reading of numerous Catholic Apologetics articles with regards to the Pauline Mass? There you will find numerous evidences of ‘restoration’ and it destroys any allegations of innovations

Even Pope Paul called the New Mass an 'innovation"
.

St. Hippolytus was entirely orthodox when it came to the liturgy…Essentially, his Canon of the Liturgy was used by the Roman Church for a couple of centuries and was even adopted by the Ethiopians. Would you have the nerve to claim that the Masses of Rome and the various Eastern Churches in that era was illicit

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/r
Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces"

The intrinsic purpose behind the Pauline Mass was to present a genuine ‘restored’ Mass that combines useful aspects of the Roman Canon and the ancient disciplines and prayers. There is nothing evil about that.

So the Mass said by countless saints and over 250 Popes needed to be restored? The words of Consecration were changed by Father Bugnini to those used by Martin Luther? Is that part of the "restoration? " You use the term “useful aspects of the Roman Canon”. Does that mean that there are aspects that are not useful? The Council of Trent said that the Canon was “free from error”

 

[havemercy]

This is an old saw. It’s obvious Ottaviani was having his elbow twisted at this point. He was also completely blind by the time this “approval letter” was written. But even if not, the arguments of the Intervention were no less applicable to the 1970 revision because the only revisions made were to the Instructions not the rite itself.

He was right in saying that the Pope could not promulgate heresy. The New Mass is hardly heretical. It is free from doctrinal error, etc.

But Ottaviani and Bacci couldn’t really do anything about it. This was the Pope’s move.

 

[vadermanu89]

It is completely unnecessary to quote the Pope’s words out of context or providing selected quotes to match your so-called agendas. It begs the question on why would Pope Paul VI criticise the very Mass he is trying to promulgate?

Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969: "1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the **liturgical innovation **of the new rite of the Mass.

Innovation means the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.

When compared to the Tridentine Rite, the Pauline Mass did contain innovations since there is a removal of elements and an introduction of previously-unheard of practices (in Tridentine Rite) into the New Rite. However based on Pope Paul VI and V2 writings, it is clear that this innovations are hardly new but were instead lost throughout the centuries.

1. A new rite of the Mass: **a change in a venerable tradition **that has gone on for centuries.

Notice tradition here is spelt with lower-case t.

1. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every** novelty **that breaks in on our habits.

Pope Paul VI teaches the laity to prepared for transitional phase when the New Rite is implemented.

1. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves.** This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church**…

I do agree. The changes are is no small amount. It is very bold of Pope Paul VI to integrate ancient lituriges with the Tridentien Rite to form an entirely new Rite. But alas, Pope Paul VI has numerous predecessors who have introduced new Rites.

It is suprising that you did not seek to quote the entire point 5. It speaks to the future Traditionalists movement.

We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council’s prescription and put them into practice.

1. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.** We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders i**n the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"

Pope Paul VI is feeling sad about ending the normative Latin liturgy especially since it is 15 century old tradition. Anyone in his position, who appreciates history and tradition, would feel sad. However, this does not demerit the necessity of Masses being said in the venecular. On the contrary, the movement to foster such Masses has existed decades prior V2.

1. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that** language of the angels? **We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values

Pope Paul VI is asking a rhetorical question. He answers the question in the following point -

1. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

He goes on to explain his intentions in the following few points.

If the so-called Traditionalist cannot competently intepretate a simple document, what more of their chances in intepretating 73 inspired Books and various papal and Counciliar documents to find the true meaning behind the various doctrines in dispute?

 

[GerardP]

He was right in saying that the Pope could not promulgate heresy. The New Mass is hardly heretical. It is free from doctrinal error, etc.

I find that to be debatable since infallibility can’t be invoked in a rite that is not universal. But in any case, the Novus Ordo is ridiculously impoverished as a rite and contains numerous distractions from the Real Presence and the sacrificial aspect.

One example: The foolish “sign of peace” has been developed to completely take people’s attention away from the consecration that has just taken place.

But Ottaviani and Bacci couldn’t really do anything about it. This was the Pope’s move.

You mean the Pope’s fault.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I find it laughable that people keep mentioning the letter Ottaviani wrote stating that the revisions to the NO alleviated all his concerns. Just read the Ottaviani Intervention, nothing was addressed. His complaints are still valid. In chapter 3 he mentions the many prayers removed from the Offertory, they were never put back in. The phrases “bread of life” and “spiritual drink” were ridiculed, they remain. The reduction of the genuflections to just three was criticized, that wasn’t changed. The examples go on and on, nothing was substantial changed after the Intervention, hence the criticisms are still valid.

Exactly. If anything, this is what makes his renunciation letter seem fake above all the other evidence.

 

[vadermanu89]

So the Mass said by countless saints and over 250 Popes needed to be restored?

If you are speaking of the exact Tridentine Mass as promulgated 8 years after Trent, it only came into being in Old Roman Missal of 1474. It did exist in a very substantial form around the 6th century onwards though it did not exist prior then.

The words of Consecration were changed by Father Bugnini to those used by Martin Luther?

Please prove your allegations.

Is that part of the "restoration? " You use the term “useful aspects of the Roman Canon”. Does that mean that there are aspects that are not useful? The Council of Trent said that the Canon was “free from error”

I do not see the logic behind your fallacious claims that aspects that are not useful are clearly in error. This aspects are clearly orthodox though it may be repetitive or perhaps the ancient aspect may ironically be more useful for mdoern day uses. It was this reason why Pope St Pius could eliminate other rites despite them ebing valid and ‘free of error’ (Trent).

Moreover the Council of Trent did not use it exclusively for the Old Roman Liturgy. It was meant for ALL litugies even Eastern Ones. This also applied to future rites such as the Tridentine Rite promulgated 8 years later and even the Pauline Rite. Hence those so-called Traditionalist who claim that the Pauline Mass is in error are possibly anathema haha.

 

[E.E.N.S]

If the so-called Traditionalist cannot competently intepretate a simple document, what more of their chances in intepretating 73 inspired Books and various papal and Counciliar documents to find the true meaning behind the various doctrines in dispute?

I think we can both agree that 99% of Novus Ordo (or OF) Masses today are hardly said according to the papal and Counciliar documents.

 

[stmaria]

=vadermanu89;3072996]It is completely unnecessary to quote the Pope’s words out of context or providing selected quotes to match your so-called agendas. It begs the question on why would Pope Paul VI criticise the very Mass he is trying to promulgate

?

Show me where I quoted out of context? I put up the link so everyone could read the entire speech for themselves.

Innovation means the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods. When compared to the Tridentine Rite, the Pauline Mass did contain innovations since there is a removal of elements and an introduction of previously-unheard of practices (in Tridentine Rite) into the New Rite. However based on Pope Paul VI and V2 writings, it is clear that this innovations are hardly new but were instead lost throughout the centuries.

I think Pope Pius XII exposed those wanting to “innovate” in his encyclical Mediator Dei
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
8. … We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.

1. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices…that such **innovations **are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days – which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates.
2. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.
   62…But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, tocite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
3. Let us recall, as well, the decree about "not introducing new forms of worship and devotion."[170] We commend the exact observance of this decree to your vigilance

 

[Sure]

?

Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

1. Let us recall, as well, the decree about "not introducing new forms of worship and devotion."[170] We commend the exact observance of this decree to your vigilance

It’s interesting that these things that he warned against are not part of the new Mass, nor are they contained in the documents of Vatican II. Unfortunately, these abuses have indeed crept in, but it was certainly not the Mass or the Second Vatican Council that made them occur.

 

[vadermanu89]

The problem with your claims St Maria btw Hello to you is this -

a) Pope Pius preached that innovations with regards to dogma is evil.

b) Pope Paul VI did not innovate any new Eucharistic theologies. He clearly upholds sacrifical priesthood, Transubstiation and the Real Presence. The consecration words and matter are the same.

c) Pope Paul VI was refering to innovations in terms of changes in the liturigcal practices. He termed the introduction of practices from ancient liturgies into the Roman Rite as an innovation. This is not the innovation of dogma which pope Pius had in mind.

d) This so called innovations are not innovations in the true sense since they even precede the Tridentine Rite.

To prove Pope Paul VI introduced innovations as condemned by previous Popes, you must prove that they are truly innovations of dogma and not just point to the existence of the word innovation in his writings.

 

[GerardP]

It’s interesting that these things that he warned against are not part of the new Mass, nor are they contained in the documents of Vatican II. Unfortunately, these abuses have indeed crept in, but it was certainly not the Mass or the Second Vatican Council that made them occur.

I agree that the abuses weren’t positively,directly made by the those events. But do you think the Novus Ordo or Vatican II reinforced the Church’s defenses against these abuses?

Did they ultimately indirectly help or hurt the cause of fighting liturgical abuse?

 

[vadermanu89]

I agree that the abuses weren’t positively,directly made by the those events. But do you think the Novus Ordo or Vatican II reinforced the Church’s defenses against these abuses?

Did they ultimately indirectly help or hurt the cause of fighting liturgical abuse?

I personally feel that the so called abuses of Masses - Clown Mass, Piazza Mass etc are due for mainly 2 reasons.

1. The chaotic period after V2 due to the ambuiguity of texts which led to the rise of liberalism in the forms of modernism and traditionalism each claiming to hold the true intepretation of the documents.
2. The embryonic nature of the Pauline Mass. Numerous catholics keeps forgetting that the Pauline Mass is only 3 decades old. It will take time to fully correct the various mistranslation and clear up misconceptions with the rubrics.

Abuses were always strife in the Catholic Masses throughout the AGes. The Tridentine Mass were heavily abused in the pre-V2 period with priest skipping parts and speeding through it. I do not blame the Popes or Councils for this abuses. I just simply blame the priests who have lost their way.

 

[havemercy]

I find that to be debatable since infallibility can’t be invoked in a rite that is not universal.

Hmm… I hadn’t thought of that.

But in any case, the Novus Ordo is ridiculously impoverished as a rite and contains numerous distractions from the Real Presence and the sacrificial aspect.

Yup.

One example: The foolish “sign of peace” has been developed to completely take people’s attention away from the consecration that has just taken place.

Can’t stand it at all.

You mean the Pope’s fault.

 

[EddieArent]

He was right in saying that the Pope could not promulgate heresy. The New Mass is hardly heretical. It is free from doctrinal error, etc.

But Ottaviani and Bacci couldn’t really do anything about it. This was the Pope’s move.

The New Mass might not be heretical per se, but it leads to it. Less we forget the Intervention rightfully attacked the heretical definition of the Mass as given by Grand Master Buan.

“The schema on the Liturgy proposes confusion and complication. If it is adopted, it would be an immediate scandal for our people. The continuity of the Mass must be kept. The tradition of the sacred ceremonies must be preserved…” James Cardinal McIntyre

 

[cam100]

havemercy;3072973:

He was right in saying that the Pope could not promulgate heresy. The New Mass is hardly heretical. It is free from doctrinal error, etc.

I find that to be debatable since infallibility can’t be invoked in a rite that is not universal.

Nevertheless, the indefectibility of the Church would spare her from promulgating an invalid rite as a valid sacrament.

 

[stmaria]

QUOTE=vadermanu89;3073063]If you are speaking of the exact Tridentine Mass as promulgated 8 years after Trent, it only came into being in Old Roman Missal of 1474. It did exist in a very substantial form around the 6th century onwards though it did not exist prior then.

Of course I am speaking of the Traditional Mass from the time of Pope Gregory.

Quote: The words of Consecration were changed by Father Bugnini to those used by Martin Luther?

Please prove your allegations

.

Father Bugnini added the words “which is given up for you” as did Luther.
He also removed the words “** Mystery of Faith**” as did Luther
Father Bugnini approved of the wrong translation of “pro multis” to mean “for all” instead of the correct words of Christ “for many”
Luther eliminated the words “for many”

The Large Catechism_ by Dr. Martin Luther OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

 ….And all these are established by the words by
    which Christ has instituted it, and which every one who
    desires to be a Christian and go to the Sacrament should know.
    For it is not our intention to admit to it and to administer
    it to those who know not what they seek, or why they come. The
    words, however, are these:
    
    Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was
    betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake
    it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is
    My body, **which is given for you**: this do in remembrance of Me.
    
    After the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped,
    gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
    this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for
    you for the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink
    it, in remembrance of Me.

I do not see the logic behind your fallacious claims that aspects that are not useful are clearly in error. This aspects are clearly orthodox though it may be repetitive or perhaps the ancient aspect may ironically be more useful for mdoern day uses. It was this reason why Pope St Pius could eliminate other rites despite them ebing valid and ‘free of error’ (Trent).

Council of Trent session XXII
Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema..

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

 

[stmaria]

It’s interesting that these things that he warned against are not part of the new Mass, nor are they contained in the documents of Vatican II. ** Unfortunately, these abuses have indeed crept in, **but it was certainly not the Mass or the Second Vatican Council that made them occur.

They crept in by design not by accident. Father’s Bugnini and Wagner, Hanggi, Righetti, Schnitzler,Journe. Vagaggini, Franquesa, Jungmann ,P.M.Gy. Bluyssen and others knew what they were doing.
It was Bishop Bluyssen that introduced communion in the hand and the laity giving communion in 1965. At the time this was an abuse.
Altar girls were first introduced in 1966 as an abuse.
Other things like priest facing the people, pop music, crucifix of the Risen Christ, removal of the Tabernacle etc. Your are right, none of this is part of the Constitution but it was all part of the plan to reform the Mass in spite of the Constitution.