Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on December 27, 2022, 09:38:21 AM
-
"Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Ottaviani) and Antonio Bacci (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Bacci) sent the Short Critical Study to Pope Paul VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_VI) with a cover letter dated 25 September 1969. The study cast doubt on the orthodoxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy) of the Mass of Paul VI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI), which had been promulgated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promulgation_(Catholic_canon_law)) by the apostolic constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution) Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, though the definitive text, which took account of some of the criticisms of the Short Critical Study, had not yet appeared.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-2)
Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel-Louis_Guérard_des_Lauriers) is said to be the main intellectual force behind the study.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-3)
Pope Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith), the department of the Roman Curia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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".[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-4)
A letter of 17 February 1970 signed by Ottaviani and addressed to Gerard Lafond, was published by La Docuмentation catholique (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Docuмentation_catholique&action=edit&redlink=1) [fr (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Docuмentation_catholique)].[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-5) It stated:
Quote 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[a] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-audience-6) 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.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-7)
The letter also expressed regret on the part of the cardinal that his letter of 25 September 1969 had been published:
Quote 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.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-8)
Jean Madiran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Madiran), a traditionalist Catholic who was the founder-director of the review Itinéraires, which was condemned by the French episcopate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops'_Conference_of_France) in 1966,[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-9) maintained that Itinéraires had received the cardinal's authorization to publish his letter to the Pope and suggested that Ottaviani had signed the letter to Dom Gerard-Marie Lafond, prepared by Ottaviani's secretary, without knowing its contents, since Ottaviani was blind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness).[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention#cite_note-10)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention
-
So the disputed question is this: Did Cardinal Ottaviani repent of the Brief Critical Study?
Jean Madiran was known to be an honest man, and that would weigh against Ottaviani knowingly signing the letter to Mr. Lafond.
On the other hand, there's no evidence to suggest Ottaviani later refused to say the new Mass.
Is anyone aware of any scholarly research on this issue?
-
90% of what most Americans know regardin the historical context surrounding the Ottaviani Intervention specific to the alleged retraction of Cardinal Ottaviani are contained in these two sources:
1) Pope Paul's New Mass (Michael Davies), pp. 483-492 (1980 edition);
2) The Ottaviani Intervention (The Background to the Ottaviani Intervention by Fr. Anthony Cekada, RIP), pp. 1-22 (TAN Books, 1992).
-
My money says that Ottaviani was taken behind closed doors and ordered to retract the statement, or else something bad would happen.
Maybe someone had something to hold over his head. (Not necessarily sex, it could be money. Those two things explain a LOT of shenanigans that go on in the world. And if you scratch the surface of almost all divorces, you'll come up with one or both of these things. Think about it.)
I always smell BS whenever someone makes a statement along one line of reasoning, then retracts what they've previously asserted.
-
So the disputed question is this: Did Cardinal Ottaviani repent of the Brief Critical Study?
Jean Madiran was known to be an honest man, and that would weigh against Ottaviani knowingly signing the letter to Mr. Lafond.
On the other hand, there's no evidence to suggest Ottaviani later refused to say the new Mass.
Is anyone aware of any scholarly research on this issue?
Upon further reflection, there is a serious objection to the liklihood that Ottaviani ever said the new Mass:
Blindness.
If Ottaviani was substantially blind in 1969 (i.e., when the new Mass was promulgated), then he was bling until his death in 1979.
For a blind man to say Mass (particularly in a new rite with which he was personally unfamiliar) is to present a significant risk of sacrilege (i.e., accidents).
This alone makes it exceedingly unlikely that, whatever else Ottaviani had to say about Vatican II elsewhere, he very likely did not ever say the new Mass.
-
My money says that Ottaviani was taken behind closed doors and ordered to retract the statement, or else something bad would happen.
Maybe someone had something to hold over his head. (Not necessarily sex, it could be money. Those two things explain a LOT of shenanigans that go on in the world. And if you scratch the surface of almost all divorces, you'll come up with one or both of these things. Think about it.)
I always smell BS whenever someone makes a statement along one line of reasoning, then retracts what they've previously asserted.
In the passages previously cited from Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass, Jean Madiran publicly accuses Ottaviani's secretary (Mgr. Augostino, a supporter of the NOM) of committing a public felony by fraudulently obtaining the blind Ottaviani's signature allegedly retracting his earlier criticisms of the NOM, then sending it off to Fr. Lafond.
Madiran challenges Augustino to appear in the ecclesiastical courts to settle the matter, but Augustino does not take him up on it.
Shortly thereafter, Augustino relinquishes his position as Ottaviani's secretary.
Which is all to say that it is much more doubtful that Ottaviani repented of his position in the Brief Critical Study, than it is that he actually knowingly endorsed the contents of the letter to Mr. Lafond.
-
In the passages previously cited from Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass, Jean Madiran publicly accuses Ottaviani's secretary (Mgr. Augostino, a supporter of the NOM) of committing a public felony by fraudulently obtaining the blind Ottaviani's signature allegedly retracting his earlier criticisms of the NOM, then sending it off to Fr. Lafond.
Madiran challenges Augustino to appear in the ecclesiastical courts to settle the matter, but Augustino does not take him up on it.
Shortly thereafter, Augustino relinquishes his position as Ottaviani's secretary.
Which is all to say that it is much more doubtful that Ottaviani repented of his position in the Brief Critical Study, than it is that he actually knowingly endorsed the contents of the letter to Mr. Lafond.
That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that.
-
In the passages previously cited from Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass, Jean Madiran publicly accuses Ottaviani's secretary (Mgr. Augostino, a supporter of the NOM) of committing a public felony by fraudulently obtaining the blind Ottaviani's signature allegedly retracting his earlier criticisms of the NOM, then sending it off to Fr. Lafond.
Madiran challenges Augustino to appear in the ecclesiastical courts to settle the matter, but Agustoni does not take him up on it.
Shortly thereafter, Augustino relinquishes his position as Ottaviani's secretary.
Which is all to say that it is much more doubtful that Ottaviani repented of his position in the Brief Critical Study, than it is that he actually knowingly endorsed the contents of the letter to Mr. Lafond.
More reasons to question Agustoni (recounted by Fr. Cekada in his introductory remarks, cited above):
1) Agustoni was a member of Consilium;
2) Agostoni was also a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship;
3) His brother was also a member of Consilium;
In other words, the blind Cardinal's secretary was heavily invested in precisely the very project Ottaviani was criticizing.
Therefore, we have both motive and opportunity, in conjunction with contradictory testimony of Jean Madiran.
It does not quite amount to proof per se, but it DEFINITELY makes the narrative of the "repentant Cardinal" extremely unlikely.
-
More reasons to question Agustoni (recounted by Fr. Cekada in his introductory remarks, cited above):
1) Agustoni was a member of Consilium;
2) Agostoni was also a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship;
3) His brother was also a member of Consilium;
In other words, the blind Cardinal's secretary was heavily invested in precisely the very project Ottaviani was criticizing.
Therefore, we have both motive and opportunity, in conjunction with contradictory testimony of Jean Madiran.
It does not quite amount to proof per se, but it DEFINITELY makes the narrative of the "repentant Cardinal" extremely unlikely.
.
I tend to be skeptical of stories of this nature. Secretaries don't typically go around forging their boss's signatures, in general. I think such an assertion would need serious evidence that it happened. Normally it should be assumed that someone's signature is legitimate.
Secondly, Cardinal Ottaviani trusted this person as his secretary, probably the highest position of trust of anyone in his life. If we're saying this secretary forged Ottaviani's signature, we're saying at the same time that Ottaviani was a complete idiot for placing such a high level of trust in someone who would commit such a grotesque and heinous fraud. Not likely at all.
Lastly, and most importantly, it doesn't appear that Cardinal Ottaviani ever retracted this statement, as he would have been gravely obliged to do if it had been a fraud. He lived another whole decade after this docuмent was published, and we are to believe that he never found out in all that time that this docuмent was circulating under his name, and with his signature? He never ran into anyone in the curia at a dinner party or even just in the hallway, who said to him, "Hey Your Eminence, what about that retraction you made of the Ottaviani Intervention? What made you change your mind?" How could such a thing have been kept secret from him for an entire decade until his death? It makes no sense.
Then, if you say he did know but didn't bother to denounce the hoax, that is the last plausible of all if you are saying it was a hoax. Because then you are saying he was complicit in the hoax, making him responsible. Think about it ... if someone published a heretical tract under your name without your consent, unbeknownst to you, and everyone who read it believed it had really come from you and thought you had apostatized, and you then learned of the existence of this tract, wouldn't you be obliged under pain of mortal sin to make a public statement denouncing the tract as a fraud? Of course you would. So why wouldn't Ottaviani have done so if it had been a fraud?
Sadly, this sort of idea always strikes me as wishful thinking.
-
.
I tend to be skeptical of stories of this nature. Secretaries don't typically go around forging their boss's signatures, in general. I think such an assertion would need serious evidence that it happened. Normally it should be assumed that someone's signature is legitimate.
From Pope Paul's New Mass (p. 490), quoting Jean Madiran: "Compare the signature at the foot of the letter to Dom Lafond ith other signatures of Cardinal Ottaviani, and with that at the foot of the ltter to Paul VI in 1969. You will perceive the difference."
Secondly, Cardinal Ottaviani trusted this person as his secretary, probably the highest position of trust of anyone in his life. If we're saying this secretary forged Ottaviani's signature, we're saying at the same time that Ottaviani was a complete idiot for placing such a high level of trust in someone who would commit such a grotesque and heinous fraud. Not likely at all.
Soon after this happened, Agostino relinquished his position as Ottaviani's secretary. It seems the trust was destroyed.
Lastly, and most importantly, it doesn't appear that Cardinal Ottaviani ever retracted this statement, as he would have been gravely obliged to do if it had been a fraud. He lived another whole decade after this docuмent was published, and we are to believe that he never found out in all that time that this docuмent was circulating under his name, and with his signature? He never ran into anyone in the curia at a dinner party or even just in the hallway, who said to him, "Hey Your Eminence, what about that retraction you made of the Ottaviani Intervention? What made you change your mind?" How could such a thing have been kept secret from him for an entire decade until his death? It makes no sense.
You can't retract a statement you never made, however, Jean Madiran reveals: "More than a month after the letter to Dom Lafond, I receved a personal assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani that the authorization [of his letter to Pope Paul VI denouncing the new Mass] was authentic, real, not revoked..." (p.491). In other words, if the letter was authentic, then why is Ottaviani explicitl denying it a month later to Jean Madiran?
Then, if you say he did know but didn't bother to denounce the hoax, that is the last plausible of all if you are saying it was a hoax. Because then you are saying he was complicit in the hoax, making him responsible. Think about it ... if someone published a heretical tract under your name without your consent, unbeknownst to you, and everyone who read it believed it had really come from you and thought you had apostatized, and you then learned of the existence of this tract, wouldn't you be obliged under pain of mortal sin to make a public statement denouncing the tract as a fraud? Of course you would. So why wouldn't Ottaviani have done so if it had been a fraud?
This objection is negated by the previous response above.
Sadly, this sort of idea always strikes me as wishful thinking.
See responses above in red.
-
Yeti, I agree with your impulse of demanding proof (as opposed to just letting a narrative supply for lacking proof). I think the way Sean put it originally is accurate, though. We do not have hard, cold proof; but we do have very good reasons for distrusting the retraction narrative. Because aside from what Sean already mentioned, we know the circle Agostino ran with was up to exactly this kind of subterfuge-- turning off microphones at the council, replacing agreed upon schemas with heterodox or ambiguous ones at the last second and without notice, pressuring conservative prelates to sign docuмents sight unseen, etc. This doesn't amount to proof of Agostino's malfeasance, but it amounts to suspicion and incredulity for sure.
-
Lastly, and most importantly, it doesn't appear that Cardinal Ottaviani ever retracted this statement, as he would have been gravely obliged to do if it had been a fraud. He lived another whole decade after this docuмent was published, and we are to believe that he never found out in all that time that this docuмent was circulating under his name, and with his signature? He never ran into anyone in the curia at a dinner party or even just in the hallway, who said to him, "Hey Your Eminence, what about that retraction you made of the Ottaviani Intervention? What made you change your mind?" How could such a thing have been kept secret from him for an entire decade until his death? It makes no sense.
Yeti,
I think that's rock solid reasoning, bringing some common sense to bear on the question. It's often that disputes like this are ultimately resolved not by referring to some "authority," or some "so and so said," but stepping back and simply giving some hard thought to an issue.
Card. Ottaviani never even heard about this letter he purportedly penned regarding such a significant question? He lived for another 10 years I believe.
I think your reasoning solid absent contrary, very persuasive evidence, which, frankly, I can't imagine coming forth.
DR
-
Yeti,
I think that's rock solid reasoning, bringing some common sense to bear on the question. It's often that disputes like this are ultimately resolved not by referring to some "authority," or some "so and so said," but stepping back and simply giving some hard thought to an issue.
Card. Ottaviani never even heard about this letter he purportedly penned regarding such a significant question? He lived for another 10 years I believe.
I think your reasoning solid absent contrary, very persuasive evidence, which, frankly, I can't imagine coming forth.
DR
See my previous response: Ottaviani explicitly rejected the authenticity of the letter to Madiran less than a month after it appeared.
-
Sean,
Lastly, and most importantly, it doesn't appear that Cardinal Ottaviani ever retracted this statement, as he would have been gravely obliged to do if it had been a fraud. He lived another whole decade after this docuмent was published, and we are to believe that he never found out in all that time that this docuмent was circulating under his name, and with his signature? He never ran into anyone in the curia at a dinner party or even just in the hallway, who said to him, "Hey Your Eminence, what about that retraction you made of the Ottaviani Intervention? What made you change your mind?" How could such a thing have been kept secret from him for an entire decade until his death? It makes no sense.
You can't retract a statement you never made, however, Jean Madiran reveals: "More than a month after the letter to Dom Lafond, I receved a personal assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani that the authorization [of his letter to Pope Paul VI denouncing the new Mass] was authentic, real, not revoked..." (p.491). In other words, if the letter was authentic, then why is Ottaviani explicitl denying it a month later to Jean Madiran?
Sean,
Seriously? If I went around brandishing a letter by Sean that endorsed the neo SSPX approach with Rome, you'd not comment or disabuse people of the fraud because you didn't write the letter and never made the statement?
The fact that Ottaviani stood behind the Intervention doesn't have anything to do with whether he also was involved with the letter. Do people contradict themselves, act or think or say contrary under pressure, etc. . . . ah, yeah they do.
DR
-
See my previous response: Ottaviani explicitly rejected the authenticity of the letter to Madiran less than a month after it appeared.
So you're pinning this on Madrian's "not revoked" regarding the Intervention. That only attests to the legitimacy of the Intervention; it's only a disavowal of the Lafond letter by a leaping inference - a reference sub silentio. I would need more than that as a juror.
-
So you're pinning this on Madrian's "not revoked" regarding the Intervention. That only attests to the legitimacy of the Intervention; it's only a disavowal of the Lafond letter by a leaping inference - a reference sub silentio. I would need more than that as a juror.
Hello DR-
How is Ottaviani’s denial of retraction tantamount to silence?
In the face of that denial, the retraction narrative is on life support, with the only two remaining plausible arguments in support of it being that Ottaviani lied to Madiran (extremely unlikely), or that Madiran lied to the world about having received the denial from Ottaviani (also extremely unlikely, since it no doubt factored into his decision to publicly impugn the honesty of Agostino).
-
I somehow doubt that Cardinal Ottaviani would ever praise the NOM as he did in that purported letter. In fact, during the infamous episode when his microphone was turned off, the Cardinal had spent 15 minutes (over his allotted time) denouncing the Council's attempts to replace the Tridentine Mass.
-
My money says that Ottaviani was taken behind closed doors and ordered to retract the statement, or else something bad would happen.
Maybe someone had something to hold over his head. (Not necessarily sex, it could be money. Those two things explain a LOT of shenanigans that go on in the world. And if you scratch the surface of almost all divorces, you'll come up with one or both of these things. Think about it.)
I always smell BS whenever someone makes a statement along one line of reasoning, then retracts what they've previously asserted.
.
Yup, I think this is obvious.
I don't think they had any blackmail material on him, though. I think by far the most probable explanation is that he was threatened with excommunication if he didn't retract the Intervention. That would explain everything in this story. He would have retracted it against his will, but retracted it all the same, which is why he never objected to this docuмent circulating stating that he retracted the intervention.
As far as some French journalist making claims about what Ottaviani supposedly said to him in a private letter, I care little for what such a man has to say if it goes against the public statements of a cardinal of the Church, especially a man of the stature of Cardinal Ottaviani.
-
.
Yup, I think this is obvious.
I don't think they had any blackmail material on him, though. I think by far the most probable explanation is that he was threatened with excommunication if he didn't retract the Intervention. That would explain everything in this story. He would have retracted it against his will, but retracted it all the same, which is why he never objected to this docuмent circulating stating that he retracted the intervention.
As far as some French journalist making claims about what Ottaviani supposedly said to him in a private letter, I care little for what such a man has to say if it goes against the public statements of a cardinal of the Church, especially a man of the stature of Cardinal Ottaviani.
You're the one calling for hard evidence, but here, you’re calling speculation “obvious?”
-
I somehow doubt that Cardinal Ottaviani would ever praise the NOM as he did in that purported letter. In fact, during the infamous episode when his microphone was turned off, the Cardinal had spent 15 minutes (over his allotted time) denouncing the Council's attempts to replace the Tridentine Mass.
.
Then why didn't he denounce the letter as a hoax? I don't think Sean grasped this problem.
Imagine if someone made an account on here called "Sean Johnson2" and claimed to be the real Sean Johnson, and started putting up a bunch of stuff promoting modernism and attacking Catholic teaching and saying Pope Francis is the best thing that ever happened to the Church.
Suppose also that everyone here on CathInfo believed this was the real Sean Johnson, and even became deceived by his ideas, and said, "Sean is a smart guy; if he thinks Francis is a great pope and Marxism is the wave of the future, maybe he's right!" And lots of members starting going to the Novus Ordo.
Don't you think (the real) Sean would get on here within 15 nanoseconds of finding out about this, and publish one thread after another denouncing the imposter and repudiating his errors? Of course he would.
He wouldn't just say, "Oh, I never made any of those heretical statements that are attributed to me by that fake account, so this is really not my problem, why should I bother with it?" Or would he content himself with writing a private letter to some journalist in France saying that "Sean Johnson2" isn't the real Sean Johnson, and leave it at that?
That's basically what Sean is saying here. It is absurd.
Yes, it is odd that Cardinal Ottaviani retracted what it says in the Intervention, since it seems like he believed in it, but as I said above, I think a much more plausible explanation is that he was threatened with excommunication by Paul VI and caved to pressure. That explanation certainly fits all the facts.
And the fact that his secretary was a member of the Consilium supports this idea too, that maybe he wasn't as conservative as we would like to think.
-
Then why didn't he denounce the letter as a hoax? I don't think Sean grasped this problem.
Sean said that he did (quoting from him below) --
See my previous response: Ottaviani explicitly rejected the authenticity of the letter to Madiran less than a month after it appeared.
-
Cardinal Ottaviani in 1958 --
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/AlfredoOttaviani.jpg/400px-AlfredoOttaviani.jpg)
Cardinal Ottaviani in 1966 --
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Alfredo_Ottaviani_%E2%80%93_edited.jpg/440px-Alfredo_Ottaviani_%E2%80%93_edited.jpg)
He appears to have experienced a serious deterioration of his health in just the short few years between 1958-1966. I wouldn't doubt if someone had been messing with him (poison?).
-
Sean said that he did (quoting from him below) --
Correct:
"More than a month after the letter to Dom Lafond, I [Madiran] receved a personal assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani that the authorization [of his letter to Pope Paul VI denouncing the new Mass] was authentic, real, not revoked..." (p.491).
Pope Paul’s New Mass^^^
In other words, he continued to maintain his positions against the new Mass AFTER the appearance of the letter to Dom Lafond.
-
Ottaviani was definitely under orders from Montini though.
After V2, Ottaviani issued a directive from the holy office banning Ecuмennical prayers with Catholics + Prots for the intention of Christian Unity. Montini found out about it and countermanded the directive.
-
Correct:
"More than a month after the letter to Dom Lafond, I [Madiran] receved a personal assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani that the authorization [of his letter to Pope Paul VI denouncing the new Mass] was authentic, real, not revoked..." (p.491).
Pope Paul’s New Mass^^^
In other words, he continued to maintain his positions against the new Mass AFTER the appearance of the letter to Dom Lafond.
I tend find Davies and Madiran to be at least trustworthy sources (even if I don't agree with all their conclusions). Between this and the subsequent dismissal of Agostino, I see this as a solid conclusion. Again, recall that Ottaviani was in the middle of denouncing attempts to replace the Tridentine Mass when he was humiliated by having his microphone cut off (by Lienart of all people), and then the remaining "Fathers" applauded and laughed at him. I think that Ottaviani suffered a dry martyrdom.
-
Within the hour, I’ll scan the entire section on the subject from Pope Paul’s New Mass, and leave it at that.
-
Correct:
"More than a month after the letter to Dom Lafond, I [Madiran] receved a personal assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani that the authorization [of his letter to Pope Paul VI denouncing the new Mass] was authentic, real, not revoked..." (p.491).
Pope Paul’s New Mass^^^
In other words, he continued to maintain his positions against the new Mass AFTER the appearance of the letter to Dom Lafond.
Lanford's letter was a public matter, right? If you want to read this private "not revoked" comment to Madrian regarding the Intervention as a denial of the authenticity of a letter supporting Paul VI's new mass that's up to you. It's capable of simply being read as an endorsement of the Intervention and his role in it, and that, coupled with the fact that Ottaviani never publicly addressed this fraudulent Lanford letter, leads me to say no, it's no such denial.
-
Also when, and how (in what manner or forum), did Madrian "maintain" that Ottaviani said this to him?
-
Lanford's letter was a public matter, right? If you want to read this private "not revoked" comment to Madrian regarding the Intervention as a denial of the authenticity of a letter supporting Paul VI's new mass that's up to you. It's capable of simply being read as an endorsement of the Intervention and his role in it, and that, coupled with the fact that Ottaviani never publicly addressed this fraudulent Lanford letter, leads me to say no, it's no such denial.
Actually, if you want to read Ottaviani's non-revocation and subsequent reaffirmation of the Ottaviani Intervention as a retraction, that's up to you.
Here follow the pertinent pages from Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass (next post):
-
Pope Paul's New Mass: The Ottaviani Intervention (pp. 483-492): Readers can make their own judgments regarding Davies' assessment of the "retraction narrative:"
(https://i.imgur.com/6PDXn0n.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ATBbDxa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/v0ytE34.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6wNXVNM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/uTocUxx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WwXr8St.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VgrazpJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/m8OLEGw.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jQtlG3b.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FyEJND9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WzBigke.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/v8j1ayG.png)
-
Actually, if you want to read Ottaviani's non-revocation and subsequent reaffirmation of the Ottaviani Intervention as a retraction, that's up to you.
Here follow the pertinent pages from Michael Davies' Pope Paul's New Mass (next post):
Looking forward to it. I'm hoping for the sake of your argument that this wasn't first revealed in Davies's book published in 1980 after Cardinal Ottaviani's death.
-
Looking forward to it. I'm hoping for the sake of your argument that this wasn't first revealed in Davies's book published in 1980 after Cardinal Ottaviani's death.
According to this (See pic of p.488 below, beginning with "Jean Madiran provided a most detailed analysis..." and continuing until p.491), it looks like the fraud was revealed/alleged almost immediately by Jean Madiran in Itineraires #142 (April, 1970):
(https://i.imgur.com/0ng6SAj.png)
-
Pope Paul's New Mass: The Ottaviani Intervention (pp. 483-492): Readers can make their own judgments regarding Davies' assessment of the "retraction narrative:"
(https://i.imgur.com/6PDXn0n.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ATBbDxa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/v0ytE34.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6wNXVNM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/uTocUxx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WwXr8St.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VgrazpJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/m8OLEGw.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jQtlG3b.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FyEJND9.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WzBigke.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/v8j1ayG.png)
So the critical page here is page 491. A month after Lafond's publication of the letter, Card. Ottaviani tells Madiran that the claim that he didn't give his authorization to the publication of his letter attached to the Intervention is false, since his authorization of its publication was "authentic, real and not revoked." As I said, that's merely a validation of his authorization of the publication of the letter and his standing behind the issuance of the Intervention, and that he never revoked his authorization of publication of the letter attached with the Intervention.
Conspicuously absent from Madiran's description of his conversation with Ottaviani after the publication of Lafond's letter is a denial by the Cardinal of the other statements in the letter or any indication of continuing objection to the Novus Ordo, i.e. any rejection of these statements:
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[a] 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.
Isn't that the critical issue regarding the Cardinal's alleged approval of the published NO?
So the Cardinal's comments, as I suspected, appear to be a ratification of his letter and involvement with the Intervention and not a rejection of the New Mass subsequently promulgated and introduced into the Church by Paul VI.
-
DR-
If these words in the Letter to Dom Lafond, and attributed to Ottaviani, are seriously to be believed to come from him, then as Davies points out, he’s a senile fool rejoicing in his own defamation and derision:
“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[a] 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.“
Note that it’s not only this Letter which Lafond uses against Ottaviani, but he also says (in the Doctrinal Note) that Ottaviani helped compose the very prayers of the new rite which he attacks in the Brief Critical Study, and that Ottaviani wasn’t even familiar with the contents of the Study (see bottom of p.487-488)!
This is hardly believable, and known in Latin as Bullus Shiticus.
-
DR-
If these words in the Letter to Dom Lafond, and attributed to Ottaviani, are seriously to be believed to come from him, then as Davies points out, he’s a senile fool rejoicing in his own defamation and derision:
“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[a] 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.“
Note that it’s not only this Letter which Lafond uses against Ottaviani, but he also says (in the Doctrinal Note) that Ottaviani helped compose the very prayers of the new rite which he attacks in the Brief Critical Study, and that Ottaviani wasn’t even familiar with the contents of the Study (see bottom of p.487-488)!
This is hardly believable, and known in Latin as Bullus Shiticus.
I was giving only a partial critique of Madiran's comments on his interview with Ottaviani, and the substantial point on the critical issue about Ottaviani's ultimate approval or non-approval of Paul VI's mass. We don't have the context provided; there are no verbatim quotes even attributed to Ottaviani; did he discuss with Ottaviani the letter itself, or only the matter of "did you authorize publication of your letter with the Intervention." There is substantial grounds for question.
The most significant of course remaining untouched, and the original point Yeti made: no public statement about the letter being not authorized by the Cardinal; no continuing expression of profound problems with the Paul VI's rite. The man (Ottaviani) said it was standing the theology of the Mass on its head and altering the true faith . . . and he says nothing further after the Intervention and the official promulgation and implementation of the NO?
In many ways, this claim that he didn't in fact change his view of Paul VI's mass, in light of his claims about it in the Intervention and subsequent silence after its promulgation and implementation, does more damage to his reputation than a claim he never changed from the view expressed in the Intervention.
-
The more one reads the pages from Davies more and more questions arise. On page 484 it's related that Card. Ottaviani signed the letter on Sept. 13th. It was planned to be given to the Pope without any publication to the outside world - and this according to Davies - for a 30 day period. Unfortunately, it's given to a priest on Sept. 14 and it gets published before the pope ever got it.
Could that publication - before the pope got the letter and had his 30 days to review it - be the "publication" Card. Ottaviani is saying he regrets and was unauthorized?
There's a ton of holes in this forgery thing I think.