Ottaviani intervention?
#31
Explain to me how 1) How the words of institution in the NO are "narrative" 2) How is this substantially different from the traditional liturgy? 3) Where the church has defined how the words of institution most be said for the mass to be valid?

As I said, there have been numerous Catholic rites whose very words of institution were different from those in the Roman Canon. Are you claiming that those were all invalid? Furthermore, if the way in which the words is said is the issue, then what about all the Eastern rites in which the words are sung aloud. Certainly our lord didn't sing the words at the Last Supper. Does this make those liturgies invalid?
Reply
#32
(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.

True to a point. The Mass has always developed and had things added, but never completely rewritten with 90% of it removed. And while we are talking about ignorance of the liturgy the Nervus Disordo of Paul VI is not the Mass of Vatican II that would be the missal from 66' which I have a copy of. It is essentially the TLM with shortened prayers at the foot of the alter and some of the crossings the Priest makes with his hands removed as well as the second confiteor dropped. THAT is the Mass of Vatican II not the lords supper celebration of Paul VI. Not sure why he went further than the 66'Mass unless it was because the freemason Bugnini talked him into it because his lodge wasn't happy with the results of the 66 missal.

edit to add: It was from that same book A study of the Roman Liturgy that I first got my doubts as to the Mass of Paul VI. The books shows in great detail how the Mass organically grew over the centuries. Then in the 1960's bang, it is thrown out the window and a new one cooked up.
Reply
#33
(12-31-2012, 03:07 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(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.

Except that by the time he signed the document given to him saying he was okay with the Mass he was blind and when he first attacked the "Mass of Paul VI" he wasn't blind. He also had his secretary removed and a new one appointed to him just before he signed the document. The poor guy was screwed over by the modernists. Just like when they all laughed at him during one of the council sessions when he was speaking.
Reply
#34
(12-31-2012, 03:07 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: 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.

So you believe him to have been a fool?
Reply
#35
This is just the beefed up version of the Sister Lucia argument.

"Sister Lucia accepted it. It must be good." Imagine a "Caiphas thinks Christ is a blasphemer" argument. Oh, what hope do any Jews have to recognize Our Lord if a member of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest, someone who should know the Messiah when He comes, cannot do it. Different things, to be sure, than Vatican II, but the same argument.

A lot of people can fall for things. It could be age, peer pressure, human respect, confusion, false obedience, and so on.

Just like the "Guatemalan Farmer" argument, the "no one objected in 1965" argument, and the newspaper clipping arguments, none of these address the traditional (SSPX or otherwise) criticisms of errors, yes, errors, in the Vatican II documents.
Reply
#36
(12-31-2012, 05:27 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is just the beefed up version of the Sister Lucia argument.

"Sister Lucia accepted it. It must be good." Imagine a "Caiphas thinks Christ is a blasphemer" argument. Oh, what hope do any Jews have to recognize Our Lord if a member of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest, someone who should know the Messiah when He comes, cannot do it. Different things, to be sure, than Vatican II, but the same argument.

A lot of people can fall for things. It could be age, peer pressure, human respect, confusion, false obedience, and so on.

Just like the "Guatemalan Farmer" argument, the "no one objected in 1965" argument, and the newspaper clipping arguments, none of these address the traditional (SSPX or otherwise) criticisms of errors, yes, errors, in the Vatican II documents.

Or the St Pio one. "St Pio's last Mass was the Novus Ordo." If I had a dollar for every time I have heard that I could buy the Pope a Papal tiara.  Padre Pio died in 68 and the new Mass came in in 69'. Thats another problem. If the new Mass had no problems and was just great they wouldn't need to whip up all of these orthodox defenders of it. St Pio wept when he heard that there were talks about changeing the Capuchin habit. I highly doubt he would have been doing cartwheels over the new improved ecumenical communion service.
Reply
#37
St Pio's last mass was a High Mass according to the old missal. However, it was unfortunately offered Versus Populum, in accordance with allowances made after the Council.
Reply
#38
Religion: A Cardinal Carabiniere, Alfredo Ottaviani: 1890-1979
Monday, Aug. 13, 1979, V. 114, I. 7, p. 49
Time Magazine

His personal motto was Semper idem (always the same) and he lived up to it with matchless rigor. Prior to the liberalizing Second Vatican Council, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani was one of the most feared and powerful princes of the Roman Catholic world. His authority as a ranking doctrinal watchdog came from his influence within the Holy Office. Ottaviani was half blind but, the Vatican saying went, "sees more with one eye than most see with two." Armed with a steely mind and consummate dedication, he became in his own word, a "carabiniere" (policeman) of orthodoxy. Even after the windows of the Vatican were finally opened to change, he never ceased to resist innovation. When he died last week of bronchial pneumonia at age 88, most of the reforms he had fought against --among them ecumenism, religious tolerance, the new Mass, the softening of censorship--were secure.

The Holy Office was charged with matters of apostasy, heresy and the regulation of doctrinal matters regarding faith and morals. It once acted as censor too. At various times Ottaviani tried to silence a Who's Who of 20th century Catholic theologians, including Karl Rahner. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Yves Congar and John Courtney Murray.

His power seemed to evaporate in one humiliating and dramatic day. At Vatican II's first session in 1962, he was orating against liturgical reform and ran well beyond the ten-minute limit on speeches. When the presiding officer ruled him out of order, a wave of applause by the assembled fathers of the council suddenly swept the Basilica. Deeply shocked, Ottaviani boycotted the proceedings for ten days thereafter. When he returned, the fathers rejected his main doctrinal proposal at the first session.

The following year. Ottaviani's own domain came under attack when Germany's Josef Cardinal Frings charged that the Holy Office's secretive methods were "an object of scandal" to the world. Pope Paul VI, just after the council closed, ordered a sweeping liberalization of the Holy Office.

The son of a poor Roman baker, Ottaviani, a brilliant canon lawyer, joined the Vatican Secretariat of State in 1928. Seven years later, he shifted to the Holy Office, becoming its No. 2 official by 1941. In Ottaviani's era the Holy Office also had a voice on external matters. In 1949 he signed the decree excommunicating Catholics who joined or aided the Communists, but with very little effect. In a 1953 speech that outraged Protestants, Ottaviani declared that rulers of predominantly Catholic states had a duty to protect "the religious unity of a people who unanimously know themselves to be in secure possession of religious truth." Vatican II rejected such thinking. Years later, he publicly denounced Pope Paul's reformed Mass as "nearly heretical."

In private life the Cardinal was a witty, charming and humane man. During World War II he personally sheltered a number of Jews. But he will be remembered for his official acts to ward off the influence of the modern world, which he felt threatened piety and the church, and which he described as "prey to an ardent rage for novelties." Ottaviani once said: "There is only one principle which counts. The church as service. And to serve it means to be faithful to its laws. Like a blind man. Like the blind man I am."
Reply
#39
(12-31-2012, 06:27 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: In private life the Cardinal was a witty, charming and humane man. During World War II he personally sheltered a number of Jews. But he will be remembered for his official acts to ward off the influence of the modern world, which he felt threatened piety and the church, and which he described as "prey to an ardent rage for novelties." Ottaviani once said: "There is only one principle which counts. The church as service. And to serve it means to be faithful to its laws. Like a blind man. Like the blind man I am."

What a sad article.  Still I think that some day people will look back and realize he was right.
Reply
#40
(12-31-2012, 05:27 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is just the beefed up version of the Sister Lucia argument.

"Sister Lucia accepted it. It must be good." Imagine a "Caiphas thinks Christ is a blasphemer" argument. Oh, what hope do any Jews have to recognize Our Lord if a member of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest, someone who should know the Messiah when He comes, cannot do it. Different things, to be sure, than Vatican II, but the same argument.

A lot of people can fall for things. It could be age, peer pressure, human respect, confusion, false obedience, and so on.

Just like the "Guatemalan Farmer" argument, the "no one objected in 1965" argument, and the newspaper clipping arguments, none of these address the traditional (SSPX or otherwise) criticisms of errors, yes, errors, in the Vatican II documents.

And Bishop Sheen and Padre Pio (who wrote a letter praising Paul VI and Vatican II, and celebrated his last mass in the vernacular facing the people).

Just because you say there are errors doesn't make it so. What's the difference between Jansenists denouncing the Pope for the novelty of Limbo (and declaring it an error) and you? Limbo (at first glance) directly contradicts the writings of Saint Augustine and the teaching of many, many Popes. 

And the difference between the High Priest and the Pope is that it was never taught that the Holy Spirit guided the High Priest.

But, what about the errors of Pius XII. It was Pius XII that started all the changes that trads abhor. Shouldn't we just ignore all his teachings as well? How does Divino Afflante Spiritu square with tradition in your mind (and especially Providentissimus Deus)? Is the post-54 missal evil? Can a valid Pontiff release an evil missal?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)