Vatican II and the Ottaviani Intervention

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmerrill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jmerrill

Guest
Is this statement from wikipedia re. Second_Vatican_Council true?
Code: 
"8 November 1963, Josef Frings criticized the Holy Office, and drew an articulate and impassioned defense by its Secretary, Alfredo Ottaviani. This exchange (known as the Ottaviani Intervention) is often considered the most dramatic of the council (Cardinal Frings's theological adviser was the young Joseph Ratzinger...."
What changes in the Mass–other than the obvious external ones, e.g. dropping Latin & position of priest at altar–were accepted by the Council?

Any suggestions where I can find facts about this online?
 
jmerrill said:
IWhat changes in the Mass–other than the obvious external ones, e.g. dropping Latin & position of priest at altar–were accepted by the Council?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, dropping Latin and changing position of the priest were not mandated or even suggested by the Council.

I thought the Ottaviani Intervention came later and was written without the vernacular or priest posture in mind.
 
The Ottaviani Intervention was written by Fr. Guerard des Lauriers. Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani did not write it; they just signed it.
 
jmerrill said:
What changes in the Mass–other than the obvious external ones, e.g. dropping Latin & position of priest at altar–were accepted by the Council?

Any suggestions where I can find facts about this online?
Click to expand...
Mass in the the vernacular and the orientation of the celebrant were not addressed by the Second Vatican Council. You can read all of the Vatican II documents on the Vatican website.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Mass in the the vernacular and the orientation of the celebrant were not addressed by the Second Vatican Council. You can read all of the Vatican II documents on the Vatican website.
Click to expand...
The vernacular was authorized by Vatican II. 36.2 and 63aSacrosanctum Concilium:

“Sacrosanctum Concilium” said:
36.2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

63 a) The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36.
Click to expand...

Of course the effect of this was that Latin was virtually dropped from all celebrations. That was not the intent of the Council, as we can plainly see in the rest of the document:
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
  1. … Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
Click to expand...
 
Nobody ever quotes this letter he wrote:
"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.
Click to expand...
 
MarcusAndreas said:
Nobody ever quotes this letter he wrote:
Click to expand...
Code: 
Thank you for Cardinal Ottaviani's letter. Having delved much more deeply into Paul VI's pontificate, I no longer hold most of the criticisms that are fundamental to the SSPX position. 

Basically, almost as soon as Humanae Vitae was issued in the midst of the chaos of 1968, vast numbers of bishops, theologians and laity simply stopped paying any attention to the precisions of Paul VI, and although he made journeys to other continents, becoming the first pope to do so, he gradually became isolated by the desertions of many who did not live up to the responsibilities laid on them by their baptism, their confirmation, their ordinations, their elevations.
 
Jaysuitical said:
Thank you for Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter. Having delved much more deeply into Paul VI’s pontificate, I no longer hold most of the criticisms that are fundamental to the SSPX position.
Code: 
Basically, almost as soon as Humanae Vitae was issued in the midst of the chaos of 1968, vast numbers of bishops, theologians and laity simply stopped paying any attention to the precisions of Paul VI, and although he made journeys to other continents, becoming the first pope to do so, he gradually became isolated by the desertions of many who did not live up to the responsibilities laid on them by their baptism, their confirmation, their ordinations, their elevations.
Click to expand...
Given that Humanae Vitae is prophetic In its description of the moral collapse we have seen during the past 45 years, one ought to be awed by this manifest intervention of the Holy Spirit. The pope was as much disregarded as Jeremiah and Our Lord Himself as he told all who would listen what will come to past.
 
I think there has been controversy about that later letter. Something about Ottaviani being totally blind at the date of the letter and it not being written in his own hand. It would seem very odd for him to do an about face on his position when the the first letter was so strongly written. Who knows.
 
Jaysuitical said:
Thank you for Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter. Having delved much more deeply into Paul VI’s pontificate, I no longer hold most of the criticisms that are fundamental to the SSPX position.
Code: 
Basically, almost as soon as Humanae Vitae was issued in the midst of the chaos of 1968, vast numbers of bishops, theologians and laity simply stopped paying any attention to the precisions of Paul VI, and although he made journeys to other continents, becoming the first pope to do so, he gradually became isolated by the desertions of many who did not live up to the responsibilities laid on them by their baptism, their confirmation, their ordinations, their elevations.
Click to expand...
To some extent, that’s true. However, I got the impression, at least in the earlier 60’s, that Paul VI was very much praised, especially after he relaxed the fasting and abstinence rules. Also after he had issued his “conscience” clause on family planning matters. He allowed Mass in the vernacular, the Saturday vigil, change in priest orientation, etc. What was not to like? :rolleyes:

HV was just plainly ignored. Most didn’t want to have any reason to dislike the Pope.
 
Ghislieri said:
I think there has been controversy about that later letter. Something about Ottaviani being totally blind at the date of the letter and it not being written in his own hand. It would seem very odd for him to do an about face on his position when the the first letter was so strongly written. Who knows.
Click to expand...
Ghislieri, you are right. There has been a controversy.
 
Lormar said:
Ghislieri, you are right. There has been a controversy.
Click to expand...
The first letter was written before the Pauline Missal was even finished. The second was written after an examination of the finished missal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top