Author Topic: A Few Points About The Ottaviani Intervention (Read 3162 times)

Santo Subito · « **on:** December 28, 2012, 08:39:56 AM »

Regarding the "Ottaviani Intervention," a few points:

1.) The "Intervention" was sent to Paul VI in Sept of '69. In Nov of '69 Paul VI addressed some concerns in his General Audience:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

Quote

9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.

11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

2.) Also, the "Intervention" was written BEFORE the first Latin edition of the Roman Missal appeared in March of 1970. That edition included a doctrinal exposition of the Mass meant to address certain concerns in the "Intervention."

3.) Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the docuмent contained many affirmations that were "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false".[http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf p.21]

4.) A letter of 17 February 1970 signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and addressed to Gerard Lafond, was published in La Docuмentation catholique 67 (1970), pp. 215–216 and 343. It stated:

"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,[5] 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."

The letter also expressed regret on the part of the cardinal that his letter of 25 September 1969, which he did not disown, had been published:

"I regret only that my name has been misused in a way I did not wish, by publishing a letter that I wrote to the Holy Father without authorizing anyone to publish it."

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2012, 10:32:17 AM »

Michael Davies, Jean Madiran, and Fr. Cekada both say if that letter of Cardinal Ottaviani's was genuine, it was obtained by deception, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at that time, and his secretary was the one giving him all the letters to be signed.

Also, it doesn't matter what the Pope says concerning the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo. What about the content? Fr. Cekada in his work Work of Human Hands and Michael Davies in his book Pope Paul's New Mass both blast it as liturgical innovation; Fr. Cekada covers more thoroughly the changes in the lex orandi which influences lex credendi. Among other things, no more mention of hell (or optional mentions), no mention of soul in the Masses for the Dead, no more mention of the Devil, miracles, etc., and changing the Words of Consecration (what Pope before Paul VI ever dared changing the Words of Consecration?!). The traditional-sounding Instruction was only there to appease conservatives; nothing else changed.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2012, 11:47:47 AM »

Quo Vadis,

Two things lead me to believe the letter was genuine and not obtained by deception.

1.) Cardinal Ottaviani was also blind in September of 1969 when he signed the intervention, a mere 5 months before the letter to Gerard Lafond. Does this mean the Intervention is of dubious authenticity? In fact he had been blind since VCII. Are any of his other letters suspect due to his blindness?

2.) If Cardinal Ottaviani lent his signature to the Lafond letter mistakenly and through deception, why did he not disavow it at any time from February 1970 until his death in August of 1979?

As for the Mass of Paul VI being liturgical "innovation", Paul VI himself admits it twice in the address I cited! But he sees it as a good innovation. He also assumes, as do most Catholics, that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Mass a disciplinary matter and may make such innovations.

Fr. Cekada is entitled to his opinion, though being a sedevacantist, one naturally takes this into consideration when evaluating his opinion. Fr. Cekada seems to assume the See is vacant and then makes his deductions from this premise. Nevertheless, the words of Paul VI, as pope, in interpreting his own Mass, is a little bit more weighty than the opinion of Fr. Cekada or anyone else regarding said Mass.

You are correct that Michael Davies is highly critical of the Mass of Paul VI. However, in his book "The Church that Cannot Fail" he clarifies that despite his criticisms of that Mass, it cannot possibly be evil in and of itself as the Church could never feed itself poison. Here he is talking of the original Mass of Paul VI in Latin said by the book. He is not talking about the optional novelies that came later (CITH, female altar servers, lay EM's, guitars, etc.)

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:27:54 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quo Vadis,

Two things lead me to believe the letter was genuine and not obtained by deception.

1.) Cardinal Ottaviani was also blind in September of 1969 when he signed the intervention, a mere 5 months before the letter to Gerard Lafond. Does this mean the Intervention is of dubious authenticity? In fact he had been blind since VCII. Are any of his other letters suspect due to his blindness?

2.) If Cardinal Ottaviani lent his signature to the Lafond letter mistakenly and through deception, why did he not disavow it at any time from February 1970 until his death in August of 1979?

As for the Mass of Paul VI being liturgical "innovation", Paul VI himself admits it twice in the address I cited! But he sees it as a good innovation. He also assumes, as do most Catholics, that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Mass a disciplinary matter and may make such innovations.

Fr. Cekada is entitled to his opinion, though being a sedevacantist, one naturally takes this into consideration when evaluating his opinion. Fr. Cekada seems to assume the See is vacant and then makes his deductions from this premise. Nevertheless, the words of Paul VI, as pope, in interpreting his own Mass, is a little bit more weighty than the opinion of Fr. Cekada or anyone else regarding said Mass.

You are correct that Michael Davies is highly critical of the Mass of Paul VI. However, in his book "The Church that Cannot Fail" he clarifies that despite his criticisms of that Mass, it cannot possibly be evil in and of itself as the Church could never feed itself poison. Here he is talking of the original Mass of Paul VI in Latin said by the book. He is not talking about the optional novelies that came later (CITH, female altar servers, lay EM's, guitars, etc.)

1)His secretary, Archbishop Agustoni, was one of the men of Consilium charged with making the Novus Ordo. He resigned after Jean Madiran threatened him with a ecclesiastical lawsuit with obtaining Cardinal Ottaviani's signature by fraud. Also, if it's genuine, then Cardinal Ottaviani became senile, since the Nota Doctrinale has calumnies against him; would anyone in his right mind approve of calumnies against him?

2) See above. Also, Fr. Cekada doesn't go into anything sedevacantist in his critique of the New Mass, so don't go there. Most traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass are doctrinal, not aesthetic. Fr. Cekada shows, through writings and comparisons of the ordinary and propers of the New Mass, that there has been a definite doctrinal changes: prayers for heretics, schismatics, and infidels in the ordinary, no mention of hell, as I said, the devil, merits of the Saints, miracles, and despising earthyl things.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:55:43 PM »

At this point in time, it should be obvious to everyone in the entire world that the letter of 1970 was a farce. If not a farce, it was wrong.

After 50 years, defending the NO and it's "mass" as not being scandalous is an impossibility, so a letter from 1970 signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, even if 100% authentic is 100% wrong.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:15:01 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

His secretary, Archbishop Agustoni, was one of the men of Consilium charged with making the Novus Ordo. He resigned after Jean Madiran threatened him with a ecclesiastical lawsuit with obtaining Cardinal Ottaviani's signature by fraud. Also, if it's genuine, then Cardinal Ottaviani became senile, since the Nota Doctrinale has calumnies against him; would anyone in his right mind approve of calumnies against him?

Here is the full letter:

http://militiasanctaemariae.blogspot.com/2011/12/doctrinal-note-on-new-ordo-missae.html

Quote

Cardinal OTTAVIANI:
Rome, February 11, 1970

“Very Reverend Father [Dom Lafond],
I received your letter of 23 January and the Doctrinal Note, dated January 29. I commend you for your work, which is remarkable for its objectivity and the dignity of his expression. This was not always, alas, the case in this controversy in which we saw ordinary Christians, genuinely offended, mixed with those who use disorder souls to increase the confusion of minds. For my part I only regret having been abused in a way that I did not wish, by the publishing a letter that I sent to the Holy Father without allowing anyone to publish it. I was very pleased to read the speech of the Holy Father on the issues of the new Ordo Missae, and especially its doctrinal clarifications contained in the Public Addresses of 19 and 26 November, after which, I believe, no can honestly be shocked. This Note will make a careful and intelligent work of catechesis to remove some genuine bafflement that the text may generate. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note and activity of the Militia Mariae wide dissemination and success.
Sincerely, Most Reverend Father, the expression of my distinguished honors, accompanied by a blessing for all your employees and members of the Militia.
A. Card. Ottaviani”

The website provides a summary of the Note. The note was a study on the Mass.

Please explain what calumnies against Cardinal Ottaviani it included?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:18:20 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
His secretary, Archbishop Agustoni, was one of the men of Consilium charged with making the Novus Ordo. He resigned after Jean Madiran threatened him with a ecclesiastical lawsuit with obtaining Cardinal Ottaviani's signature by fraud. Also, if it's genuine, then Cardinal Ottaviani became senile, since the Nota Doctrinale has calumnies against him; would anyone in his right mind approve of calumnies against him?

Here is the full letter:

http://militiasanctaemariae.blogspot.com/2011/12/doctrinal-note-on-new-ordo-missae.html

Quote
Cardinal OTTAVIANI:
Rome, February 11, 1970

“Very Reverend Father [Dom Lafond],
I received your letter of 23 January and the Doctrinal Note, dated January 29. I commend you for your work, which is remarkable for its objectivity and the dignity of his expression. This was not always, alas, the case in this controversy in which we saw ordinary Christians, genuinely offended, mixed with those who use disorder souls to increase the confusion of minds. For my part I only regret having been abused in a way that I did not wish, by the publishing a letter that I sent to the Holy Father without allowing anyone to publish it. I was very pleased to read the speech of the Holy Father on the issues of the new Ordo Missae, and especially its doctrinal clarifications contained in the Public Addresses of 19 and 26 November, after which, I believe, no can honestly be shocked. This Note will make a careful and intelligent work of catechesis to remove some genuine bafflement that the text may generate. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note and activity of the Militia Mariae wide dissemination and success.
Sincerely, Most Reverend Father, the expression of my distinguished honors, accompanied by a blessing for all your employees and members of the Militia.
A. Card. Ottaviani”

The website provides a summary of the Note. The note was a study on the Mass.

Please explain what calumnies against Cardinal Ottaviani it included?

That he made the changes of the Novus Ordo himself and adopted it at his request, especially the changes he most resolutely opposed in the Critical Study. So he's contradicting himself, because right after this letter, he told Jean Madiran that he expressly approved the Critical Study. Bfore he already told Fr. Raymond Dulac the same thing.

In any case, the secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned, after the threat of ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madiran.

And why are you obsessed with this letter? Even the Vatican took no notice of it, indicating that they knew the letter was suspicious already. And Cardinal Bacci still approved of the Study, even if Cardinal Ottaviani retracted.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:20:26 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Also, Fr. Cekada doesn't go into anything sedevacantist in his critique of the New Mass, so don't go there. Most traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass are doctrinal, not aesthetic. Fr. Cekada shows, through writings and comparisons of the ordinary and propers of the New Mass, that there has been a definite doctrinal changes: prayers for heretics, schismatics, and infidels in the ordinary, no mention of hell, as I said, the devil, merits of the Saints, miracles, and despising earthyl things.

Fr. Cekada docuмents the changes. That part is objective comparison. The conclusions he draws from these changes are his opinion. My point was that the explanation of the meaning and purpose of the changes by the author of the changes himself, Paul VI, should be given a little more weight than the interpretations of a priest who clearly has a vested interest in an interpretation of those changes that supports his a priori belief the See is vacant.

As I said, Michael Davies also makes many of the same critiques as Fr. C of the NO. The difference is that Davies does not conclude that the NO Mass is per se evil or sacrilegeous.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:23:48 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
Also, Fr. Cekada doesn't go into anything sedevacantist in his critique of the New Mass, so don't go there. Most traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass are doctrinal, not aesthetic. Fr. Cekada shows, through writings and comparisons of the ordinary and propers of the New Mass, that there has been a definite doctrinal changes: prayers for heretics, schismatics, and infidels in the ordinary, no mention of hell, as I said, the devil, merits of the Saints, miracles, and despising earthyl things.

Fr. Cekada docuмents the changes. That part is objective comparison. The conclusions he draws from these changes are his opinion. My point was that the explanation of the meaning and purpose of the changes by the author of the changes himself, Paul VI, should be given a little more weight than the interpretations of a priest who clearly has a vested interest in an interpretation of those changes that supports his a priori belief the See is vacant.

As I said, Michael Davies also makes many of the same critiques as Fr. C of the NO. The difference is that Davies does not conclude that the NO Mass is per se evil or sacrilegeous.

He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.

It seems to me that you haven't really read Davies' work Pope Paul's New Mass; I know you haven't bothered with Fr. Cekada's more thorough work, but just because he's sede, doesn't make his objections invalid. And they show a descralization from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo; the SSPX study of the New Mass, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, says the same thing, that a new theology was promoted in the New Mass, with all its disturbing consequences.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:26:33 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

That he made the changes of the Novus Ordo himself and adopted it at his request, especially the changes he most resolutely opposed in the Critical Study. So he's contradicting himself, because right after this letter, he told Jean Madiran that he expressly approved the Critical Study. Bfore he already told Fr. Raymond Dulac the same thing.

In any case, the secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned, after the threat of ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madiran.

And why are you obsessed with this letter? Even the Vatican took no notice of it, indicating that they knew the letter was suspicious already. And Cardinal Bacci still approved of the Study, even if Cardinal Ottaviani retracted.

You are making a lot of assertions without any citations to back them up.

Please provide some authority for the claims that:

1. The Study of the NO Mass cited in the letter asserted that Cardinal Ottaviani suggested changes in the NO Mass that he himself criticized.

2. The secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned because of a threat of an ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madrian.

3. The Vatican thought this letter was suspicious.

Also, how could Jean Madiran have any standing to bring an ecclesiastical lawsuit?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:29:33 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
That he made the changes of the Novus Ordo himself and adopted it at his request, especially the changes he most resolutely opposed in the Critical Study. So he's contradicting himself, because right after this letter, he told Jean Madiran that he expressly approved the Critical Study. Bfore he already told Fr. Raymond Dulac the same thing.

In any case, the secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned, after the threat of ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madiran.

And why are you obsessed with this letter? Even the Vatican took no notice of it, indicating that they knew the letter was suspicious already. And Cardinal Bacci still approved of the Study, even if Cardinal Ottaviani retracted.

You are making a lot of assertions without any citations to back them up.

Please provide some authority for the claims that:

1. The Study of the NO Mass cited in the letter asserted that Cardinal Ottaviani suggested changes in the NO Mass that he himself criticized.

2. The secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned because of a threat of an ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madrian.

3. The Vatican thought this letter was suspicious.

Also, how could Jean Madiran have any standing to bring an ecclesiastical lawsuit?

Do I have to do your homework for you? It's all in Davies' work, p. 485-492. And if Jean Madiran was actually saying a calumny against the secretary, do you think the secretary would have resigned? Would he have taken it lying down? I very much doubt it.

Do I also have to say the absurdity that was contained in the Nota Doctrinale, that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't even read the Critical Study, and yet telling two people, Madiran and Fr. Dulac, in October 1969 and then right after the Nota and the letter of Fr. Lafonde, that he read and approved the study?!!

Santo Subito · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:36:01 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.

Doing a study is one thing. Anyone can conduct a study and give their opinions. Even critical opinions, like Davies. But to conduct a study and then conclusively state that the NO Mass is evil and sacrilegeous is another. What authority does Fr. Cekada have to declare a Mass evil and sacrilegeous? No more authority than a lib priest has in declaring the TLM evil and sacriligeous. Therefore, this opinion is Fr. C's own and is just an opinion from a priest. A priest who happens to be a sedevacantist and an opinion that happens to correspond with his prior view that the See is vacant, which is to be expected.

My point is that the NO Mass is not beyond criticism. However, there is no heresy contained in it. It may have more ambiguous phraseology and language than the TLM. However, if interpreted in a Catholic manner, which is proper for a Catholic Mass, it is not heretical and does not contain error. Therefore on a basic level it is not evil or sacrilegeous.

This says nothing about later innovations which were allowed (CITH, female altar servers) not to mention abuses. Also factor in the hundred other things that destroy reverence in most NO Masses (architecture, barren sanctuary, shifted tabernacle) and you have amble room for criticism.

My point is that there is no way to look at the NO Mass as promulgated in Latin and somehow definitively conclude, on one's own, that it is per se evil and sacrilegeous, could not come from the Church, and therefore Paul VI must be an antipope.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:41:04 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Do I have to do your homework for you? It's all in Davies' work, p. 485-492.

How does Davies know? What does he cite?

Quote

And if Jean Madiran was actually saying a calumny against the secretary, do you think the secretary would have resigned? Would he have taken it lying down? I very much doubt it.

Perhaps the secretary could care less what Jean Madrain thought and was scheduled to retire anyway. I don't know the circuмstances and haven't read the official sources.

Quote

Do I also have to say the absurdity that was contained in the Nota Doctrinale, that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't even read the Critical Study, and yet telling two people, Madiran and Fr. Dulac, in October 1969 and then right after the Nota and the letter of Fr. Lafonde, that he read and approved the study?!!

I'd like to get my hands on the Nota Doctrinale. I looked for a copy online and all I coulld find is a very short summary I linked to. I'd like to see if these claims are in the Nota Cardinal Ottaviani received and, if so, what the context was.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:42:53 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.

Doing a study is one thing. Anyone can conduct a study and give their opinions. Even critical opinions, like Davies. But to conduct a study and then conclusively state that the NO Mass is evil and sacrilegeous is another. What authority does Fr. Cekada have to declare a Mass evil and sacrilegeous? No more authority than a lib priest has in declaring the TLM evil and sacriligeous. Therefore, this opinion is Fr. C's own and is just an opinion from a priest. A priest who happens to be a sedevacantist and an opinion that happens to correspond with his prior view that the See is vacant, which is to be expected.

My point is that the NO Mass is not beyond criticism. However, there is no heresy contained in it. It may have more ambiguous phraseology and language than the TLM. However, if interpreted in a Catholic manner, which is proper for a Catholic Mass, it is not heretical and does not contain error. Therefore on a basic level it is not evil or sacrilegeous.

This says nothing about later innovations which were allowed (CITH, female altar servers) not to mention abuses. Also factor in the hundred other things that destroy reverence in most NO Masses (architecture, barren sanctuary, shifted tabernacle) and you have amble room for criticism.

My point is that there is no way to look at the NO Mass as promulgated in Latin and somehow definitively conclude, on one's own, that it is per se evil and sacrilegeous, could not come from the Church, and therefore Paul VI must be an antipope.

The NO promulgated in Latin was studied by Fr. Cekada and the SSPX and they reveal the doctrinal errors contained in the Novus Ordo. If it is as you say, then the SSPX and other traditionalists have no need to avoid the Novus Ordo. But we insist on never going to the Novus Ordo; Archbishop Lefebvre did, saying also there were doctrinal errors threatening the spiritual life of a Catholic.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2012, 01:45:09 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
Do I have to do your homework for you? It's all in Davies' work, p. 485-492.

How does Davies know? What does he cite?

Quote
And if Jean Madiran was actually saying a calumny against the secretary, do you think the secretary would have resigned? Would he have taken it lying down? I very much doubt it.

Perhaps the secretary could care less what Jean Madrain thought and was scheduled to retire anyway. I don't know the circuмstances and haven't read the official sources.

Quote
Do I also have to say the absurdity that was contained in the Nota Doctrinale, that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't even read the Critical Study, and yet telling two people, Madiran and Fr. Dulac, in October 1969 and then right after the Nota and the letter of Fr. Lafonde, that he read and approved the study?!!

I'd like to get my hands on the Nota Doctrinale. I looked for a copy online and all I coulld find is a very short summary I linked to. I'd like to see if these claims are in the Nota Cardinal Ottaviani received and, if so, what the context was.

The fact that Michael Davies was recommended by the current Pope doesn't in the least make him a reliable source? He cites the page numbers of the Nota Doctrinale, also cited by Jean Madiran. No one attacked their integrity here, and in fact, the silence that came from all quarters proves their charge, in my mind.

And in any case, there's still Archbishop Lefebvre and others who approved of the study, and made other critiques of the New Mass.