As much as I respect +ABL, he was not a theologian, and nowhere close to the level of +Ottaviani and the others who studied the ‘perfect’ new mass and still found so many deficiencies that they characterized it as a protestantized departure from the catholic understanding of the mass, as taught by Trent.
The countless ‘conservative’ novus ordo-ites who factlessly defend the novus ordo and its “abuses” (ie sacrileges) do so under the naive idea that the “true, pure” novus ordo is pleasing to God. “If only the REAL novus ordo was used, like Paul VI wanted, then the Church’s problems would be fixed”, they say. And they wait for this nirvana-like utopia to one day happen, because they haven’t faced reality - that is, the novus ordo is not pure, will never be perfect and is inherently flawed.
+Ottaviani and company studied the “pure, utopian” new mass and came away disgusted by its anti-catholic errors. They studied the NOM in its “perfect” form, without any abuses/sacrileges, without its full Masonic/humanistic liturgy in place, before the widespread blasphemy of communion in the hand and all the other liturgical mayhem which was added into the Martin Luther-inspired mockery of Christ’s sacrifice of the cross.
It matters not if +Ottaviani changed his mind 100% about his critical study, all that matters are facts. What he and his fellow theologians wrote about the evils of this new liturgy is still true, it’s problems still exist (and are now worse), it’s theology is still defunct, deficient and communistically deplorable.
Nothing in +Ottaviani’s ‘change of heart’ letter challenges his previous theological assertions, nor does it change the reality that the NOM is a striking departure from Trent and 2,000 years of consistent catholic teaching on the purpose, goal and beauty of the Mass - which many V2 theologians readily, proudly and openly admit.
Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul (Read 20703 times)