"traditional" Catholicism

[JKirkLVNV]

Those quotes are just posted on liberal sites… Jean Madiran, editor of the French journal Itineraires, claimed that the letter (I have rejoiced profoundly…) was fraudulently presented to Cardinal Ottaviani for his signature, by his secretary who resigned shortly thereafter. Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at the time.

And so we reach the crux of the matter: One does have to buy into conspiracy theories, over the clear understanding of the Church, to believe most radical traditionalist assertions.

“Liberal sites?” What “liberal” sites?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wikipedia is hardly comprehensive, but:

“Jean Madiran, a critic of Vatican II,[7] and editor of the French journal Itinéraires, claimed that this letter was fraudulently presented to the elderly and already blind cardinal for his signature by his secretary, Monsignor (and future Cardinal) Gilberto Agustoni, and that Agustoni resigned shortly afterwards.[8] Monsignor Agustoni resigned as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary in 1970 to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota [9], and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment. Furthermore, Jean Madiran admits that he was not in the room to see this alleged deception of Cardinal Ottaviani. [10]” (emphasis mine).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention

 

[Uxor]

Wikipedia is hardly comprehensive, but:

“Jean Madiran, a critic of Vatican II,[7] and editor of the French journal Itinéraires, claimed that this letter was fraudulently presented to the elderly and already blind cardinal for his signature by his secretary, Monsignor (and future Cardinal) Gilberto Agustoni, and that Agustoni resigned shortly afterwards.[8] Monsignor Agustoni resigned as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary in 1970 to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota [9], and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment. Furthermore, Jean Madiran admits that he was not in the room to see this alleged deception of Cardinal Ottaviani. [10]” (emphasis mine).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention

You forgot to add this…

**Cardinal Ottaviani at least remained critical of liturgical deviations,[citation needed] as has been the Holy See[11], **but was severely weakened physically after 1970 due to blindness and vascular complications. He died on 3 August 1979.

^ See, for instance, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum

I hope you don’t think that would also be a radical traditional assertion.

 

[Uxor]

Wikipedia is hardly comprehensive, but:

“Jean Madiran, a critic of Vatican II,[7] and editor of the French journal Itinéraires, claimed that this letter was fraudulently presented to the elderly and already blind cardinal for his signature by his secretary, Monsignor (and future Cardinal) Gilberto Agustoni, and that Agustoni resigned shortly afterwards.[8] Monsignor Agustoni resigned as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary in 1970 to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota [9], and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment. Furthermore, Jean Madiran admits that he was not in the room to see this alleged deception of Cardinal Ottaviani. [10]” (emphasis mine).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ottaviani_Intervention

So what he wasn’t in the room, what does that prove?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You forgot to add this…

**Cardinal Ottaviani at least remained critical of liturgical deviations,[citation needed] as has been the Holy See[11], **but was severely weakened physically after 1970 due to blindness and vascular complications. He died on 3 August 1979.

^ See, for instance, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum

I hope you don’t think that would also be a radical traditional assertion.

So, um, what’s wrong with the Cardinal (and the Holy See and virtually everyone who post in these fora) being critical of liturgical deviation (though you will notice that this entry states that a citation for this assertion is needed)? No, I don’t think that’s a radical traditionalist assertion. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his submission to the Pope regarding the NO Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So what he wasn’t in the room, what does that prove?

That he shouldn’t have “asserted” it? In a court of law, this would be hearsay. He had no way of proving it.

And you still haven’t provided a link to “liberal” sites. What liberal sites?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

You’ve got to be kidding me. This is not a footnote. It’s a change of subject.

**You must be the Joker! You make false statements.
Please review the Intervention, is too large for thread

let’s not forget to quote ALL of what Cardinal Ottaviani said on the theology of the Mass:

You are making FALSE statements: the documents you have quoted have NOT BEEN PROVEN AUTHENTIC! YOU KNOW THAT! You push an agenda that not truthful, your replies are now SUSPECT. This is NOT CHRISTIAN MENTALITY. It is unjust to those who seek info on topics they choose to discover

Please Read

In February 1970 a French clergyman, Dom Gerard Lafond, published a defense of the New Order of Mass entitled Note Doctrinale sur le nouvel Ordo Missae. Among other things, the Note claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani had been the author of certain passages in the New Order of Mass, that these passages were the same ones attacked in the Critical Study, that the cardinal had not approved the Critical Study, and that it is probable that its contents were withheld from him. No proof was given to substantiate these allegations.(Davies, 487–8.)
The following month Dom Lafond published the facsimile of a letter Cardinal Ottaviani was alleged to have written to him on 17 February 1970. In this letter the Cardinal is said to have stated that: (1) he examined the Note Doctrinale, (2) he not only approved of it but congratulates Dom Lafond on the dignity of its expression, (3) he did not authorize the publication of his letter to Paul VI, and (4) his hesitations over the Novus Ordo have been put to rest by the discourses Paul VI gave on 19 and 26 November.(For the full text, see Davies, 495–6.)
We have spoken of the 17 February letter as something Cardinal Ottaviani is “alleged” to have written. Is there any reason to suspect the letter’s authenticity?

First, it seems somewhat strange that the Cardinal would have approved of the Note Doctrinale. The work, after all, contained statements which in effect were calumnies against him.(Davies, 489.)

Second, the 17 February letter leaves the impression that the Intervention had been published without the Cardinal’s authorization. This too seems somewhat strange—for on two separate occasions (in October 1969 and again after the 17 February letter was published) the Cardinal did in fact personally authorize two different individuals to publish the Intervention.(See Jean Madiran’s comments, Davies, 491)

Third, in his book on Ottaviani’s diaries, Emilio Cavaterra says nothing about the 17 February letter. Had the letter been authentic, it would have provided Cavaterra, who sought to explain away the cardinal’s hesitations about the New Mass, with an ideal opportunity to show that Ottaviani’s worries had been put to rest.

Cavaterra, moreover, quotes from his interview with Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, the cardinal’s secretary, who likewise tried to distance Ottaviani from the Intervention. Msgr. Agustoni, too, is silent about the letter, which, had it been authentic, would have supported the monsignor’s contention that the cardinal always maintained “a positive attitude.” towards the liturgical reform.***(Agustoni’s comments are quoted in Cavaterra, 118.)

---

Fourth, there is the matter of Msgr. Agustoni himself. He himself had signed the Note Doctrinale. It would have been in his interest to secure the Cardinal’s approval as well. A number of traditionalist writers pointed this out in 1970, and noted that, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind by this time, it would have been child’s play for Msgr. Agustoni to have tricked the Cardinal into signing the 17 February letter.

While the foregoing facts were unknown in 1970, a public dispute over the authenticity of the 17 February letter erupted nevertheless. Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itinéraires, publicly accused Msgr. Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. Shortly thereafter Msgr. Agustoni relinquished his position as the Cardinal’s secretary.(For an account of the whole affair, see Itinéraires 142 (April 1970), and Davies, 485–92.)

Does Coomeraswamy give a date that this letter was supposedly written? least quote Ottaviani can give you the source of exactly where it was written. If Coomeraswamy gave one, wish somebody supply it.

Rama P. Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, (Rockford IL: TAN 1990), 69–75; Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI: Qu’en Penser?, (Chiré-en-Montreuil, France: Diffusion de la Penseé Française 1975), 99–124.

I hope this helps with your confusion.
I shall say a prayer for you.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.**

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

That he shouldn’t have “asserted” it? In a court of law, this would be hearsay. He had no way of proving it.

And you still haven’t provided a link to “liberal” sites. What liberal sites?

Please see post #86
Respectfully and May God+ Bless.

 

[Ham1]

**
You are making FALSE statements: the documents you have quoted have NOT BEEN PROVEN AUTHENTIC! YOU KNOW THAT! You push an agenda that not truthful, your replies are now SUSPECT. This is NOT CHRISTIAN MENTALITY. It is unjust to those who seek info on topics they choose to discover

Please Read**

In February 1970 a French clergyman, Dom Gerard Lafond, published a defense of the New Order of Mass entitled Note Doctrinale sur le nouvel Ordo Missae. Among other things, the Note claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani had been the author of certain passages in the New Order of Mass, that these passages were the same ones attacked in the Critical Study, that the cardinal had not approved the Critical Study, and that it is probable that its contents were withheld from him. No proof was given to substantiate these allegations.(Davies, 487–8.)
The following month Dom Lafond published the facsimile of a letter Cardinal Ottaviani was alleged to have written to him on 17 February 1970. In this letter the Cardinal is said to have stated that: (1) he examined the Note Doctrinale, (2) he not only approved of it but congratulates Dom Lafond on the dignity of its expression, (3) he did not authorize the publication of his letter to Paul VI, and (4) his hesitations over the Novus Ordo have been put to rest by the discourses Paul VI gave on 19 and 26 November.(For the full text, see Davies, 495–6.)
We have spoken of the 17 February letter as something Cardinal Ottaviani is “alleged” to have written. Is there any reason to suspect the letter’s authenticity?

First, it seems somewhat strange that the Cardinal would have approved of the Note Doctrinale. The work, after all, contained statements which in effect were calumnies against him.(Davies, 489.)

Second, the 17 February letter leaves the impression that the Intervention had been published without the Cardinal’s authorization. This too seems somewhat strange—for on two separate occasions (in October 1969 and again after the 17 February letter was published) the Cardinal did in fact personally authorize two different individuals to publish the Intervention.(See Jean Madiran’s comments, Davies, 491)

Third, in his book on Ottaviani’s diaries, Emilio Cavaterra says nothing about the 17 February letter. Had the letter been authentic, it would have provided Cavaterra, who sought to explain away the cardinal’s hesitations about the New Mass, with an ideal opportunity to show that Ottaviani’s worries had been put to rest.

Cavaterra, moreover, quotes from his interview with Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, the cardinal’s secretary, who likewise tried to distance Ottaviani from the Intervention. Msgr. Agustoni, too, is silent about the letter, which, had it been authentic, would have supported the monsignor’s contention that the cardinal always maintained “a positive attitude.” towards the liturgical reform.***(Agustoni’s comments are quoted in Cavaterra, 118.)

---

Fourth, there is the matter of Msgr. Agustoni himself. He himself had signed the Note Doctrinale. It would have been in his interest to secure the Cardinal’s approval as well. A number of traditionalist writers pointed this out in 1970, and noted that, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind by this time, it would have been child’s play for Msgr. Agustoni to have tricked the Cardinal into signing the 17 February letter.

While the foregoing facts were unknown in 1970, a public dispute over the authenticity of the 17 February letter erupted nevertheless. Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itinéraires, publicly accused Msgr. Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. Shortly thereafter Msgr. Agustoni relinquished his position as the Cardinal’s secretary.(For an account of the whole affair, see Itinéraires 142 (April 1970), and Davies, 485–92.)

I hope this helps with your confusion.
I shall say a prayer for you.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

Why are you posting someone else’s work as your own? Isn’t that a bit deceiving? 90% of the previous post was quoted directly from an article by Anthony Cekada on traditionalmass.org. It wasn’t your work. You plagiarized it.

So, let me get this straight, you are calling Bear06’s PUBLISHED sources false??? And your source for this is??? A fringe website posting from a priest who left the SSPX, then left the SSPV, and started a sedevacantist church. So, we should take the online drivel of a whack-job priest over published sources with documentation? If you’re going to debate on these boards you might want to consider using quality sources and your own words. It will give you a lot more credibility.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please see post #86
Respectfully and May God+ Bless.

It’s STILL, at best, hearsay (at worst, it’s tin foil hat territory). It would never fly in a court of law AND it’s very poorly supported academically.

 

[Uxor]

So, um, what’s wrong with the Cardinal (and the Holy See and virtually everyone who post in these fora) being critical of liturgical deviation (though you will notice that this entry states that a citation for this assertion is needed)? No, I don’t think that’s a radical traditionalist assertion. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t make his submission to the Pope regarding the NO Mass.

If I say it, you call me a heretic. I was refering to the Pope and by citing Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. You pick and choose who makes radical assertions.

Time Magazine Nov 23, 1962
The motto on Alfredo Cardinal Otta viani’s Vatican coat of arms" is Semper Idem (Always the Same), and the rigid Ottaviani has clearly and consistently argued that the Roman Catholic Church should resist change. As secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Ottaviani, 72, has diligently searched out those whom he considers modernists and heretics. As undisputed leader of conservative opinion at the Second Vatican Council, he has opposed reform as vigorously as he once opposed the idea of holding the council.

Ottaviani’s first collision came three weeks ago while he was heatedly warning the council that the schema proposing changes in Catholic liturgy bordered on heresy. Reminded by the presiding cardinal that his speech exceeded the ten-minute time limit, Ottaviani sat down. His fellow prelates clapped, applauding the ruling

Ottaviani’s most significant defeat came in discussion of the draft constitution on Scripture and tradition proposed by the commission he heads. Liberals believe that Scripture and tradition should be “like two arcs in the same searchlight” —a change that would delight Protestants, who have long been put off by Catholic emphasis on tradition. But Ottaviani’s proposals reflect the opposite view: that Scripture and tradition are two separate “founts of revelation,” that Scripture must be read under "ecclesiastical guidance."

Two powerful cardinals—Palermo’s Ruffini and Genoa’s Siri—supported Cardinal Ottaviani, who remarked to a friend, "We’re always with Peter and under Peter, even when he is in the greatest danger

EWTN
Anyone reading the exchanges between the bishops during the sessions of the council must be impressed by the high level of the discussion. For example, the discussion of the Declaration on Religious Liberty was feared by some to fly in the face of earlier Church teaching, obviously a serious reason for caution. Proponents, respecting this concern, were eager to allay it. Participants in the debate opposed one another against a background of a shared concern for the tradition of the Church. Some would, reduce this spirited and often profound exchange to a conflict between liberals and conservatives, but such a reduction misses the depth of the discussion.

Reading some of those accounts of the council sessions, especially those written at the time, is not an edifying experience. Even so relatively sober a book as Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s The Rhine Flows into the Tiber portrays the debates as no nobler than a playground quarrel. Perhaps the saddest description is Fr. Wiltgen’s account of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani being silenced:

On October 30, the day after his seventy-second birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani addressed the council to protest against the drastic changes which were being suggested in the Mass. “Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.” Speaking without a text, because of his partial blindness, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit which all had been requested to observe. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Council Presidents, showed his watch to Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding that morning. When Cardinal Ottaviani reached fifteen minutes, Cardinal Alfrink rang the warning bell. But the speaker was so engrossed in his topic that he did not notice the bell, or purposely ignored it. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia had been silenced, and the Council Fathers clapped with glee.19

Do you think Christ would of silenced him? I fail to believe the Cardinal had a change of heart despite the wishes of some.

 

[Uxor]

That he shouldn’t have “asserted” it? In a court of law, this would be hearsay. He had no way of proving it.

And you still haven’t provided a link to “liberal” sites. What liberal sites?

Why would the author make that up? I’m sure he felt his source/s were crediable unless your into conspiracy theories.

You could of done a search only a handful, ExtremeCatholicism and SSPX.Agenda.

 

[Uxor]

Why are you posting someone else’s work as your own? Isn’t that a bit deceiving? 90% of the previous post was quoted directly from an article by Anthony Cekada on traditionalmass.org. It wasn’t your work. You plagiarized it.

So, let me get this straight, you are calling Bear06’s PUBLISHED sources false??? And your source for this is??? A fringe website posting from a priest who left the SSPX, then left the SSPV, and started a sedevacantist church. So, we should take the online drivel of a whack-job priest over published sources with documentation? If you’re going to debate on these boards you might want to consider using quality sources and your own words. It will give you a lot more credibility.

Shame you refer to a Priest like that…