FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Ottaviani intervention?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(12-31-2012, 02:03 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]If the NO is de facto invalid, we're basically in a sedevacantist position.
i think you mean de jure, not de facto...?

In any case, there are arguments out there for the invalidity of the Novus Ordo without sedevacantism. See, for example, Fr. James Wathen's The Great Sacrilege.
(12-31-2012, 11:12 AM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-31-2012, 02:03 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]If the NO is de facto invalid, we're basically in a sedevacantist position.
i think you mean de jure, not de facto...?

In any case, there are arguments out there for the invalidity of the Novus Ordo without sedevacantism. See, for example, Fr. James Wathen's The Great Sacrilege.

Yup thanks I knew it was are "de" of some sort. :)
(12-31-2012, 11:12 AM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-31-2012, 02:03 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]If the NO is de facto invalid, we're basically in a sedevacantist position.
i think you mean de jure, not de facto...?

In any case, there are arguments out there for the invalidity of the Novus Ordo without sedevacantism. See, for example, Fr. James Wathen's The Great Sacrilege.
I think that the Sedes would say the same thing. Invalid mass=sede position.
(12-31-2012, 09:18 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-31-2012, 01:14 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]Ottaviani is one of the most evil men of the 20th century, responsible to leading millions of souls into error. A very sad thing for a seemingly very orthodox head of the Holy office to do. 

You seriously don't believe this do you. He defended the Mass while his boss destroyed it. No sir he is not one of the most evil men of the 20th century that would be Paul VI who DID lead millions of souls into error as have his succesors.

This is a great example of how taking something out of context can drastically change its meaning.  Here is Someone's original sentence:
Quote: Either the NO is valid or Ottaviani is one of the most evil men of the 20th century, responsible to leading millions of souls into error.
He is making the point that the NO must be valid, since we all know that Cardinal Ottaviani was not an evil man.  By leaving off part of the sentence, the meaning is changed to the opposite of what Someone believes.
(12-31-2012, 09:16 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-31-2012, 01:14 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]Cardinal Ottaviani accepted the NO and encoorueged others to do so after his concerns were addressed. Either the NO is valid or Ottaviani is one of the most evil men of the 20th century, responsible to leading millions of souls into error. A very sad thing for a seemingly very orthodox head of the Holy office to do. 

No he was goaded into signing onto the NO when he was an 80 year old blind man.

So if he was a feeble blind old man than we shouldn't worry about his intervention since it is just the ravings of an old man.

You can't have it both ways and say Ottavani was nobody's fool and that's why he objected, and then say he was fooled into accepting the NO. If the head of the Holy Office can't figure out that the NO isn't Catholic we're all screwed.
Here's my take. The Ottaviani Intervention raises some valid points. I think most of those have been sufficiently addressed. I think others were non-starters and showed somewhat of a one-sided view that seemed to not even take into account a wider notion of theology besides Tridentine counter-reformation/neo-scholasticism. A bit passionate, and caught up in the time. I don't see it as a timeless work of universal principles, but the last big protest from the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, whose voice was becoming more and more out of tune with the Papal will. It was needed and valuable, but it comes off to me as a historical piece instead of a vital work related to our time. Other books more recent discuss these topics too. I think the involvement of the Cardinals is overblown, and the later acceptance under-accepted. The whole Church accepted the orthodoxy of the Mass. As far as I know, Ottaviani didn't come to bat for Lefebvre when he was having his dustup with the Pope circa 74. Fr. Guérard des Lauriers went on to become a sedevacantist bishop. For a great work of traditionalists, teh history of the players is far from unified and glorious. They all went separate ways and disagreed with one another. So give it a read, but other than that, I think other books address the topics better.

Among them:

Work of Human Hands, by Fr Cekada
Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?, by Adam S. Miller

These are pro and con. I also recommend for the true seekers, the works on the sources of the New Mass by Cuthbert Johnson & Anthony Ward (http://fontesliturgicae.blogspot.com/).
Scriptorium Wrote:I think others were non-starters and showed somewhat of a one-sided view that seemed to not even take into account a wider notion of theology besides Tridentine counter-reformation/neo-scholasticism.

Just in case you decide to edit your post...  This sounds like it could have come from Cardinal Kasper:

"It is not my intention to outline here the eventful history of the genesis of Unitatis redintegratio as it overturned the narrow post-Tridentine Counter-Reformation outlook of the church."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif...sm_en.html


In other words:

"Catholic theology is something more than what the Church has understood and defined it as (positive and speculative); Catholic doctrine regarding ecclesiology can be relativized (by calling it post-Tridentine or Neo-Scholastic) in order to promote a new doctrine which supersedes it (e.g., the 'true particular [schismatic] Churches' of the Church of Christ)..."

Balderdash.
Having recently read The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Fr. Adrian Fortescue, probably the most cited author on the rubrics and composition of the traditional liturgy, I have decided that most of the polemics against the NO are ignorant of liturgical history. The Mass of Paul VI is clearly deficient in its prayers and rubrics when compared with the traditional liturgy. Plenty of studies have demonstrated this fact. I will also concede that that Mass of Paul VI was an ill-conceived attempt at reform that has proved disastrous in many ways for the church.

However, I maintain that the liturgical chaos which has overwhelmed the church much more the result of the work of translators (ICEL etc.) and the "Spirit of Vatican II reformers." There seems to be great resentment amongst Trad types against attempts to celebrate the new liturgy in a more traditional form. Usually the response is something like "putting lipstick on a pig," or dismissing it as "smells and bells." However, these things: ad Orientem, Latin, the Roman Canon, COTT kneeling, Gregorian chant, orthodox sermons, are the reasons that the vast vast majority of Catholics who attend the TLM do so.

The majority of attempts to prove that the Mass of Paul VI is an "Un-Catholic" liturgy focus on elements that are not intrinsic to the mass. Those that do look at the Latin text and rubrics only show how the mass is inferior to the traditional liturgy. None of these things show it to be inherently non-Catholic. Keep in mind that the Church has had hundreds of liturgies in both its Eastern and Western rites since its founding by our Lord. The fact is that some of these liturgies are better than others. The Mozarabic rite (the Liturgy of the see of Toledo) has different words of institution from the Roman Rite. Does this make it invalid or un-Catholic? No. There was even a Syriac liturgy that the church ruled to be valid that lack the words of consecration entirely. The liturgy was given to us by God in a very general sense, but the Missals have never fallen from heaven. The failure to recognize this is critical flaw.
(12-31-2012, 03:59 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: [ -> ]Having recently read The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Fr. Adrian Fortescue, probably the most cited author on the rubrics and composition of the traditional liturgy, I have decided that most of the polemics against the NO are ignorant of liturgical history. The Mass of Paul VI is clearly deficient in its prayers and rubrics when compared with the traditional liturgy. Plenty of studies have demonstrated this fact. I will also concede that that Mass of Paul VI was an ill-conceived attempt at reform that has proved disastrous in many ways for the church.

However, I maintain that the liturgical chaos which has overwhelmed the church much more the result of the work of translators (ICEL etc.) and the "Spirit of Vatican II reformers." There seems to be great resentment amongst Trad types against attempts to celebrate the new liturgy in a more traditional form. Usually the response is something like "putting lipstick on a pig," or dismissing it as "smells and bells." However, these things: ad Orientem, Latin, the Roman Canon, COTT kneeling, Gregorian chant, orthodox sermons, are the reasons that the vast vast majority of Catholics who attend the TLM do so.

The majority of attempts to prove that the Mass of Paul VI is an "Un-Catholic" liturgy focus on elements that are not intrinsic to the mass. Those that do look at the Latin text and rubrics only show how the mass is inferior to the traditional liturgy. None of these things show it to be inherently non-Catholic. Keep in mind that the Church has had hundreds of liturgies in both its Eastern and Western rites since its founding by our Lord. The fact is that some of these liturgies are better than others. The Mozarabic rite (the Liturgy of the see of Toledo) has different words of institution from the Roman Rite. Does this make it invalid or un-Catholic? No. There was even a Syriac liturgy that the church ruled to be valid that lack the words of consecration entirely. The liturgy was given to us by God in a very general sense, but the Missals have never fallen from heaven. The failure to recognize this is critical flaw.

This is very well said and represents my own opinion, probably better than I could have done myself.
(aka THIS)
DoktorDespot Wrote:The majority of attempts to prove that the Mass of Paul VI is an "Un-Catholic" liturgy focus on elements that are not intrinsic to the mass. Those that do look at the Latin text and rubrics only show how the mass is inferior to the traditional liturgy. None of these things show it to be inherently non-Catholic. Keep in mind that the Church has had hundreds of liturgies in both its Eastern and Western rites since its founding by our Lord. The fact is that some of these liturgies are better than others. The Mozarabic rite (the Liturgy of the see of Toledo) has different words of institution from the Roman Rite. Does this make it invalid or un-Catholic? No. There was even a Syriac liturgy that the church ruled to be valid that lack the words of consecration entirely. The liturgy was given to us by God in a very general sense, but the Missals have never fallen from heaven. The failure to recognize this is critical flaw.

1.  The majority, maybe, but not all.  Some criticisms actually look at the Words of Consecration themselves, and see that they are given in narrative form, which is not adequate to effect the confection of the Blessed Sacrament.

2.  This "approval" sends the message, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that there are not essential words (the form) which are necessary for the confection of the Blessed Sacrament.  The Council of Trent taught that Our Lord Himself intstituted and fixed the substance of the sacraments.  The Church has no power to change them, and yet Vatican II and its aftermath attempted to do otherwise.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7