Ottaviani intervention?
#11
A trad priest at a supper tonight described the Novus Ordo as being the "Roman Rite, in ruins". The words required for transubstantiation are there, but the entire thing is a heavily eroded version of the Traditional Mass. If the NO is de facto invalid, we're basically in a sedevacantist position.
Reply
#12
The Dying Flutchman,
I think your other thread gives us some really good clues as to why Paul VI approved what he did:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...602.0.html

Quote:Pope Paul VI also understood this.  The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology.  In his newly published book True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Massimo Faggioli narrates Paul's response when his philosopher friend Jean Guitton asked why not concede the 1962 missal to breakaway Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers.  Paul responded:

"Never.  This Mass ... becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council.  I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol.  Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken.  And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken."
Reply
#13
(12-31-2012, 01:01 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-31-2012, 12:58 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: Seriously though, There have been times since coming to tradition I have attended to NO out of necessity and for family reasons, but after reading the intervention it seems a Lutheran "Mass" would be just as Catholic.

I have a Catholic friend (NO) who is married to a Lutheran woman. He sometimes goes to her church with her, and he says there is very little difference between the NO Mass and the Lutheran service.

There is, of course, one massive, qualitative difference. We have a sacrificing priesthood, the Lutherans don't. A Lutheran layman, pretending to be a cleric as they do, celebrating a rubrically perfect Tridentine Mass in Latin is still offering a 'Lutheran service'.
Reply
#14
(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.
Reply
#15
(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.
Reply
#16
(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.

Tell me how he is the most evil man and how defending the Mass and pointing out the problems with the modern communion service led millions into error yet the new Mass cooked up by Paul VI his Freemason appointee Bugnini who even John XXIII kicked out and 6 protestants are not. I would really like to hear your reasoning.
Reply
#17
(12-31-2012, 01:20 AM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: I remember reading on Fr Z's site about an account from "The Rhine flows into the Tiber". Ottaviani was blind so didn't have notes to read before the council panel. When he exceeded his time, good old +Tisserant waved his watch to +Alfrink who rang the bell. When Ottaviani failed to respond, they cut his mic and laughed at him. Ottaviani is now laughing because his "prophecies" are coming to pass.  

On October 30, the day after his seventy-second birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani addressed the council to protest against the drastic changes which were being suggested in the Mass. "Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation." Speaking without a text, because of his partial blindness, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit which all had been requested to observe. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Council Presidents, showed his watch to Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding that morning. When Cardinal Ottaviani reached fifteen minutes, Cardinal Alfrink rang the warning bell. But the speaker was so engrossed in his topic that he did not notice the bell, or purposely ignored it. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia had been silenced, and the Council Fathers clapped with glee.19
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SIPVAT2.HTM

Remember though Tea Guy he was "one of the most evil men of the 20th century" according to someone 1776. Heck he defended the Mass and pointed out Paul VI was wrong, he's right up there with Hitler and Stalin. He was treated shamefully by the Vatican II modernists. As they did and do treat all true Catholics.
Reply
#18
(12-31-2012, 02:05 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The Dying Flutchman,
I think your other thread gives us some really good clues as to why Paul VI approved what he did:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...602.0.html

Quote:Pope Paul VI also understood this.  The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology.  In his newly published book True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Massimo Faggioli narrates Paul's response when his philosopher friend Jean Guitton asked why not concede the 1962 missal to breakaway Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers.  Paul responded:

"Never.  This Mass ... becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council.  I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol.  Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken.  And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken."

True I forgot all about that thread. :Hmm:
Reply
#19
(12-31-2012, 02:03 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: A trad priest at a supper tonight described the Novus Ordo as being the "Roman Rite, in ruins". The words required for transubstantiation are there, but the entire thing is a heavily eroded version of the Traditional Mass. If the NO is de facto invalid, we're basically in a sedevacantist position.

How so.?The Mass and whether or not there is a Pope are two different issues aren't they? Many Popes good Saintly Popes did do wrong things from time to time nothing as drastic as changing the Mass, but that did not make them not Pope.
Reply
#20
(12-31-2012, 02:03 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: A trad priest at a supper tonight described the Novus Ordo as being the "Roman Rite, in ruins". The words required for transubstantiation are there, but the entire thing is a heavily eroded version of the Traditional Mass.

I had a FSSP Priest say once as to why he celebrated the TLM exclusively this way. "The New Rite is like a readers digest condensed version of a novel. When I read a book I want the whole story."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)