Vatican II and the Ottaviani Intervention

[Lormar]

The first letter was written before the Pauline Missal was even finished. The second was written after an examination of the finished missal.

Timothy, thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

The first letter was written before the Pauline Missal was even finished. The second was written after an examination of the finished missal.

I may be wrong on this but I think much of this had to do with the definition of the Mass. Gamber in his book notes:

Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as “the Lord’s Supper of the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal.The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is a painful obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today.

Footnotes:

Original text: Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum, Article 7, Editio typica, p. 15

Abendmahl: literally translated as “Evening Meal,” or “Supper”; generally referred to as “The Lord’s Supper.”

The revised text is: In missa seu Cena dominca populus Dei in unum convocatur, sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini seu sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum (“In the Mass, or Supper of the Lord, the people of God are called together into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (Article 7, Missale Romanum, Editio typica, Vatican, 1970), p. 29

The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Gamber, 1993, Una Voce Press

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t like to copy and paste large sections but I feel it is warranted:

*"The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention” , publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing: *

“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)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “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)"

 

[Ghislieri]

The first letter was written before the Pauline Missal was even finished. The second was written after an examination of the finished missal.

The first letter was dated Septmeber 25th, 1969. This is how the sequence of events unfolded, from what I found:

A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove that there was a “retraction”. 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. [Agustoni was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni [along with his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which created the “New Mass” and which the Arch-Architect of the New Mass, 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 possible 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 original letter, which they courageously published.

 

[otjm]

The first letter was dated Septmeber 25th, 1969. This is how the sequence of events unfolded, from what I found:

A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove that there was a “retraction”. 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. [Agustoni was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

He would not have known what he was signing if he was not told what the contents were. It appears that it was Jean Madiran, founder of Itneraires, who suggested that the Cardinal signed without knowing its contents; that suggestion seems to have obtained factual simulation through repetition. Iineraires subsequently was condemned by the French episcopate. It was Itineraires which held that it had permission to publish the Cardinal’s letter; the Cardinal also added in the letter of “retraction” that he had not authorized the first letter to be published.

It might also be added that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said, of the first letter, that it contained many affirmations that were “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional, and false”. Given that the Cardianl had been had of the dicastery before, one needs to keep that response in mind when looking at the whole picture. and the whole picture is that this has been part and parcel of the SSPX position on the OF, and goes back to Archbishop Lefebvre, under whom the 12 theologians who wrote the first letter worked.

The Church has repudiated the first letter. We can get into conspiracy theories (such as below herein), as are maintained by the SSPX, or we can follow Rome.

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni [along with his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which created the “New Mass” and which the Arch-Architect of the New Mass, 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 possible 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 original letter, which they courageously published.

And Rome spoke, but the matter is still not laid to rest.

Cardinal Ottaviani has gone on to his reward, so unless some sort of “smoking gun” is produced, what we have is a letter which was the work of theologians under the direction of Archbishop Lefebvre, and sent by the Cardinal, which letter was repudiated by Rome; a letter of retraction which was signed by the Cardinal; suggestions by the founder-director of a traditionalist review that the Cardinal did not know what he was signing, and an on-going conspiracy theory which is promoted by the SSPX.

It is also entirely possible that someone spoke with the Cardinal sufficient to affirm that the Cardinal acknowledged is retraction -which would put holes in the “suggestion”. We won’t know, as Rome is not going to dignify the theory set forth by the suggestion. To insinuate that Agustoni manufactured a lie, and to make the indirect implication that he was later made Cardinal (with an unspoken implication that it might have been a payback) is not a place I would want to go, and I am sure you do not intend to go there either.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Didn’t the Melkite Patriarch argue for adopting the vernacular in the council?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please do not use the forums to search for clues as to how and why you should ignore or reject the Ordinary Form of the mass. It is what the Church allows. End of story.

 

[jmerrill]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my query. I certainly did not expect so many different/differing responses and it will take me awhile to know which ones will help me. Can say for certain, that I’ll begin by clicking on the link below and try to keep smiling when I see just how many documents there are! Thanks, Francis!

They are all here:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/

Of course there are a lot of documents!

 

[ProVobis]

Didn’t the Melkite Patriarch argue for adopting the vernacular in the council?

I don’t know. What were his arguments?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know. What were his arguments?

I guess this is a good introduction to it: melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction

 

[ProVobis]

I guess this is a good introduction to it: melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction

FWIW, from your reference, I find this noteworthy.

So it is natural that certain Melkite ideas advanced at the Council remain undeveloped and unrealized in the Catholic Church: the principle that collegiality should be operative not just among bishops, but on the diocesan level, between the bishop and his presbyterate; that the laity, especially women, should be given their proper dignity and role in church life; that adequate hierarchical provision be made, as a pastoral right and not as a concession dependent on the good will of anyone, for the pastoral care of Eastern Catholics in the diaspora; that a more supple, nuanced view, like that of the Orthodox Churches, be allowed regarding the remarriage of unjustly abandoned spouses; that the problem of the date of Easter be resolved in ecumenical agreement with other Churches; that the Roman Curia assume its proper place within a healthy ecclesiology, no longer operating as a substitute for the apostolic college of bishops, or pretending to possess and exercise incommunicable powers which belong by divine right to the supreme pontiff alone, and cannot be delegated to or arrogated by anyone else.

 

[ConstantineTG]

FWIW, from your reference, I find this noteworthy.

I agree, those things are unsolved and I don’t know if there is any effort right now to resolve them. But at least two things did come to light, the vernacular Liturgy and the reinstitution of the Diaconate as a permanent ministry.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The discussions on this thread reinforce for me my minority position on why I would consider it immensely helpful for the Vatican to publicize widely (encouraging their reading in parishes) clarification as to what V2 did and did not “do,” did and did not mandate, did and did not allow. Yes, I know the documents exist, but most of the laity, whatever their age and Catholic education, are not aware of legitimate vs. illegitimate interpretations of the Council. (And I’m certainly speaking of far more than liturgy.) Without doing this, it is my (minority) opinion () that the job of corrective new adult catechesis will be compromised because people will be confused or conflicted.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree, those things are unsolved and I don’t know if there is any effort right now to resolve them. But at least two things did come to light, the vernacular Liturgy and the reinstitution of the Diaconate as a permanent ministry.

As we’ve discussed on this forum recently the diaconate was always a “permanent” ministry, at least technically speaking. Each priest still performs the roles of a deacon. Perhaps you meant that it is now allowed to ordain married men as deacons?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

As we’ve discussed on this forum recently the diaconate was always a “permanent” ministry, at least technically speaking. Each priest still performs the roles of a deacon. Perhaps you meant that it is now allowed to ordain married men as deacons?

I think Constantine was justified in referring to the “reinstitution” of the Diaconate as a permanent ministry. While it is true that the priest - and bishops for that matter - retain the servant character of the diaconate, the Paul VI document “Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem” issued in June 1967 is sub-titled “General Norms for RESTORING the Permanent Diaconate in the Latin Church.” (Emphasis mine)

 

[ConstantineTG]

As we’ve discussed on this forum recently the diaconate was always a “permanent” ministry, at least technically speaking. Each priest still performs the roles of a deacon. Perhaps you meant that it is now allowed to ordain married men as deacons?

I mean that one remains a deacon and not be ordained as a priest serving as a deacon.

This is an interesting development though, something that warrants its own thread. I’ve never thought about deacons much when I was RC. But in the Constant(name removed by moderator)olonian tradition, priests and bishops never vest and never serve as anything other than what they are. They may take the part of a deacon if no deacon is present, for example a deacon sings the prayers outside the iconostas facing the royal doors, while the priest will remain at the altar table and say those same prayers if no deacon is present. I wonder why there is development is present in the West.

To the L&S section!!!