The Ottaviani Intervention

[E.E.N.S]

Has anyone here read this? Thoughts?

(Link for those who haven’t: The Ottaviani Intervention)

 

[GerardP]

Has anyone here read this? Thoughts?

(Link for those who haven’t: The Ottaviani Intervention)

Yes. I read it years ago and it stunned me almost as much as when I first attended a Traditional Latin Mass and found out how much had been removed and changed.

And even worse, the Ottaviani Intervention refers to the Latin Novus Ordo done according to the rubrics. It’s not even referring to vernacular masses and all the subsequent innovations that took hold after it’s promulgation.

For people with the time and money, I’d recommend Charles Coulombe and William Biersach’s audio series “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” in which over 17 hours, they compare the Old Missal with the New Missal in both Latin and English with added comparisons from other rites in regards to the consecration. It’s available from Catholic Treasures in audio tape. They are live lectures and often very funny in some places and passionate in others as they describe their own liturgical adventures.

Coulombe was made a papal knight by John Paul II in his latter years as Pope.

 

[E.E.N.S]

And even worse, the Ottaviani Intervention refers to the Latin Novus Ordo done according to the rubrics. It’s not even referring to vernacular masses and all the subsequent innovations that took hold after it’s promulgation.

Yes, I was aware of this, which only stands to make the letter have more impact, (or at least it should).

For people with the time and money, I’d recommend Charles Coulombe and William Biersach’s audio series “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” in which over 17 hours, they compare the Old Missal with the New Missal in both Latin and English with added comparisons from other rites in regards to the consecration. It’s available from Catholic Treasures in audio tape.

Do you know if it is available in CD or MP3 format?

 

[MrS]

Yes, I was aware of this, which only stands to make the letter have more impact, (or at least it should).

Do you know if it is available in CD or MP3 format?

Apparently not, but the audio is here:

catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/20149.html

 

[cam100]

As has been pointed out in this forum previously, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote this in 1969 before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. Some have noted that the Novus Ordo was subsequently revised to alleviate some of his objections, and the cardinal was satisfied with the final result.

It should be noted that after the Novus Ordo was promulgated, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote this:

“I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

And later he aslso wrote:

“The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL
LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

(the source for my quotes is here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html)

Now, some people claim these letters must be fakes, and the result of a conspiracy against the cardinal. One problem with this hypothesis is that there is no record of any rebuttal by the cardinal. One would think that if fake letters were being circulated with the cardinal’s name on them that he would have said something about that.

 

[GerardP]

As has been pointed out in this forum previously, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote this in 1969 before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. Some have noted that the Novus Ordo was subsequently revised to alleviate some of his objections, and the cardinal was satisfied with the final result.

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.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Cam100, it should be worthy to note that when those “warm reception” of the New Mass were written, Cardinal Ottaviani was in his 80s, almost completely blind, ill, and sufffered from numerous vascular problems. Not to mention that shortly after allegations that Ottaviani’s rather progressive secretary Gilberto Augustoni, resigned shortly after this last letter.

Also, why would Ottaviani do a 180 and provide no explanation for it. And believe it or not, the changes made to the new mass from 1965-1969 were rather insignifigant. In fact, many historians have said that the NO was virtually entirely formulated by Bugnini by 1948.

 

[cam100]

This is an old saw. It’s obvious
Ottaviani was having his elbow twisted at this point.

I think this is just speculation. Do you have some evidence to support this claim?

He was also completely blind by the time this “approval letter” was written.

Didn’t he have a secretary who could take dictation? (And yes, I’ve seen a rumor that he fired his secretary after this, but I’ve also read that the secretary was moved to a higher position, which seems to indicate that the secretary left for a promotion and wasn’t fired for devious behavior.)

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.

Do you have some supporting info for this claim?

I’ve seen SSPX supporters use the Ottaviani Intervention as support for their refusal to participate in the Novus Ordo, but I’ve never seen any evidence that Cardnial Ottavini refused to celebrate or participate in the Novus Ordo after it was promulgated. It would seem that despite any reservations that cardinal had about the Novus Ordo, he didn’t think they were sufficient to avoid participation in it.

 

[GerardP]

I think this is just speculation. Do you have some evidence to support this claim?

No. It is just a speculation. But it’s a very reasonable one considering the specific details of the Ottaviani Intervention and the vagueness of the later letter. Ottaviani was orthodox but he was also a highly political figure and not above gamesmanship and powerplays. Plus the fact that Cardinal Bacci never retracted anything adds to the suspicion.

Didn’t he have a secretary who could take dictation? (And yes, I’ve seen a rumor that he fired his secretary after this, but I’ve also read that the secretary was moved to a higher position, which seems to indicate that the secretary left for a promotion and wasn’t fired for devious behavior.)

That’s also just a speculation. But don’t you think the secretaries “relations” were a bit suspicious and where his promotion took him was equally suspicious?

Do you have some supporting info for this claim?

Yes, the Ottaviani Intervention. It’s clear from reading it that the Liturgy they are describing matches the best Novus Ordo ever celebrated.

I’ve seen SSPX supporters use the Ottaviani Intervention as support for their refusal to participate in the Novus Ordo, but I’ve never seen any evidence that Cardnial Ottavini refused to celebrate or participate in the Novus Ordo after it was promulgated. It would seem that despite any reservations that cardinal had about the Novus Ordo, he didn’t think they were sufficient to avoid participation in it.

That would mean you have evidence that he did say the Novus Ordo, learning it blind and in his 80’s.

 

[cam100]

Cam100, it should be worthy to note that when those “warm reception” of the New Mass were written, Cardinal Ottaviani was in his 80s, almost completely blind, ill, and sufffered from numerous vascular problems.

But he was able to write the “Ottaviani Intervention” – a letter of more than 6,500 words – in 1969, a year before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. I think he would have been able to say something about fake letters being distributed in his name.

Not to mention that shortly after allegations that Ottaviani’s rather progressive secretary Gilberto Augustoni, resigned shortly after this last letter.

We were posting at the same time – I addressed this in the following post.

Also, why would Ottaviani do a 180 and provide no explanation for it. And believe it or not, the changes made to the new mass from 1965-1969 were rather insignifigant. In fact, many historians have said that the NO was virtually entirely formulated by Bugnini by 1948.

According the story, he wasn’t doing a 180 because he was responding to the fact that his reservations about the mass had been alleviated somehow, hence his acceptance.

I have heard some people say that the changes after Ottaviani’s Intervention were insignificant and don’t warrant an acceptance from him, but I haven’t seen any real evidence of this. It would be nice to see exactly what changes were made at what time, but I don’t know if these documents are public.

 

[cam100]

That would mean you have evidence that he did say the Novus Ordo, learning it blind and in his 80’s.

Well, I don’t know if he was too blind or weak to celebrate mass in 1970, but I did point out in another post that was wasn’t too disabled in 1969 to write a paper more than 6,500 words long about his thoughts on the Novus Ordo at that time. Also, he was blind at the time of the council, but he was still an active and vocal participant. In any event, he must have at least attended mass after 1970. If he had refused to celebrate/attend the Novus Ordo, it seems most likely that someone would have made a note of this. Yet no such observation appears to have been recorded.

 

[stmaria]

But he was able to write the “Ottaviani Intervention” – a letter of more than 6,500 words – in 1969, a year before the Novus Ordo was promulgated. I think he would have been able to say something about fake letters being distributed in his name.

Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the “Intervention”. He wrote the cover letter. The intervention was written by 12 theologians after the Novus Ordo was celebrated for the first time in the Sistine Chapel.

 

[jj2011]

Speaking as a traditionalist who was raised to reject the Novus Ordo even before these documents were written, I’d like to clarify one thing.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci only wrote the cover letter to Paul VI; the critical essay about the new mass was written by a group of self-styled “Roman theologians.”

As elderly priests, both cardinals would have had the faculty of offering the traditional mass privately; thus there was no “need” for them to actually say the Novus Ordo.

The critique is right on about the practical disaster the Novus Ordo would become, but it has one crucial omission. It ignores the issue of indefectibility which protects universal disciplinary laws.
It assumes that the new rite “implicitly” repudiates the traditional faith or has “no intention” of presenting it, without demonstrating that such a thing is even possible in a rite promulgated for the entire Roman Rite.

Implicitly Paul VI is presented as an imbecile who is about to promulgate a quasi-heterodox rite, and then the appeal is made precisely to him to stop this disaster. This may explain why Paul VI dug in his heels and plowed ahead with the changes.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
And even worse, the Ottaviani Intervention refers to the Latin Novus Ordo done according to the rubrics. It’s not even referring to vernacular masses and all the subsequent innovations that took hold after it’s promulgation.**

Ottaviani later wrote a letter to Pope Paul VI expressing his thanks that his concerns had been addressed in the official release of the Novus Ordo.

Those who quote the OI tend to ignore this statement.

 

[arieh0310]

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.

 

[vadermanu89]

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.

 

[arieh0310]

Many of the so called changes on the Pauline Mass was a genuine restoration of the ancient liturgies.

This is oft repeated, but I have never seen any substantial proof that this is true. What is a genuine restoration of ancient liturgies? The “Handshake of Comradeship” which bears no resemblance to the ancient Kiss of Peace? The versus poplulum which has been has been resoundingly denounced by scholars as never occurring in the ancient Church? The heavy influence of Hippolytus, the textual tradition of which is a giant mess and many scholars believe contain many late additions and redactions (and wrote his “Apostolic Tradition” as an anti-pope)?

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. On the contrary, SC #23 demands organic growth from existing forms, not antiquarianism. Older is not necessarily better (especially since we have to rely on the waffling opinions of historians).

 

[jj2011]

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.

Again, Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the critical essay cited; he co-wrote the letter to Paul VI recommending that this pope give serious consideration to the critical essay.

We don’t really know how many hands produced that critical essay. I have heard names ranging from the highly respected Mgr Lefebvre all the way to Guerard de Lauriers, a Dominican theologian who went on to become a sedevacantist and Thuc line bishop.

 

[arieh0310]

Again, Cardinal Ottaviani did not write the critical essay cited; he co-wrote the letter to Paul VI recommending that this pope give serious consideration to the critical essay.

True, thank you for clarifying, I should have been more precise. But if I am not mistaken, this Intervention came through the Holy Office with Ottaviani’s approval.

Like I said, the Ottaviani Letter means nothing if the substance of the Intervention was never addressed.

 

[jj2011]

True, thank you for clarifying, I should have been more precise. But if I am not mistaken, this Intervention came through the Holy Office with Ottaviani’s approval.

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.

Like I said, the Ottaviani Letter means nothing if the substance of the Intervention was never addressed.

Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter was written to ask that priests continue to be allowed to have recourse to the traditional missal, so in a way, the Intervention has been addressed, albeit imperfectly and incompletely, by Pope Benedict with the recent Motu Proprio.

Unfortunately, in spite of a lot of palaver about a “reform of the reform” (not that there’s anything wrong with it!), we have not yet seen the church authority deal with the substantive deficiencies of the current liturgical regime. Let us pray that the beauty and holiness of the traditional Mass be restored to every altar.