Author Topic: Ottaviani Intervention: A Disputed History (Read 2449 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2022, 09:06:52 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 28, 2022, 08:20:50 AM

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).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:19:30 AM »

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.

Yeti · « **Reply #17 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:32:12 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on December 27, 2022, 10:27:05 AM

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #18 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:35:47 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on December 28, 2022, 10:32:12 AM

.

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?”

Yeti · « **Reply #19 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:38:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 28, 2022, 10:19:30 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:50:52 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on December 28, 2022, 10:38:34 AM

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) --

Quote

See my previous response: Ottaviani explicitly rejected the authenticity of the letter to Madiran less than a month after it appeared.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:53:39 AM »

Cardinal Ottaviani in 1958 --

Cardinal Ottaviani in 1966 --

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?).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #22 on:** December 28, 2022, 10:57:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 28, 2022, 10:50:52 AM

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** December 28, 2022, 11:06:42 AM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** December 28, 2022, 11:10:05 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 28, 2022, 10:57:36 AM

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.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** December 28, 2022, 11:18:28 AM »

Within the hour, I’ll scan the entire section on the subject from Pope Paul’s New Mass, and leave it at that.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #26 on:** December 28, 2022, 11:40:29 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 28, 2022, 10:57:36 AM

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.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #27 on:** December 28, 2022, 11:44:46 AM »

Also when, and how (in what manner or forum), did Madrian "maintain" that Ottaviani said this to him?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** December 28, 2022, 12:09:24 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 28, 2022, 11:40:29 AM

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):

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #29 on:** December 28, 2022, 12:17:13 PM »

Pope Paul's New Mass: The Ottaviani Intervention (pp. 483-492): Readers can make their own judgments regarding Davies' assessment of the "retraction narrative:"