What Cardinal Ottaviani said about the New Mass in 1969

When the New Mass was first being introduced, Cardinal Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes (the Holy office is the Vatican tribunal responsible for uprooting heresy and protecting the purity of the Catholic faith) came out with a scathing letter against it. Soon thereafter, the Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced, a nd the New Mass was imposed on the Church.

The following is what the Cardinal said in his cover letter Pope Paul VI. And keep in mind that what the Cardinal was condemning was the new mass in its most pure condition and without any “abuses”. The mass had not yet been poorly translated into the vernacular; the Priest was still facing the altar, there were no altar girls, no communion in the hand, and the words of consecration had not been changed (since the change was made in the translation to the vernacular). Yet, even its most pristine state, the Cardinal felt it his duty to warn Paul VI of the serious consequences that could result from this “innovation”.

Cardinal Ottaviani: "Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

  1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, **the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

**2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

**Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily.

Continue…
**

  1. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

The following is a link to the study that accompanied the letter which begins by saying:

"The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences** and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

**http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

And this is detailed even more in the Michael Davis work Time Bombs of Vatican II.

“Anti-Trads” for want of a better name, really don’t see how the Mass, while still licit and valid, and holy, has been “dumbed down” to appeal to Protestant intervention and desires.

Scott Hahn has said, the good is the enemy of the best, when referring to Catholicism, and any thing else that is less than the whole deposit of faith. This could also be said of the NO. Not that it is the enemy of the best, but the fruits of the abuses that resulted surely are.

The next Ecumenical Council must diligently and dogmatically refute all such speculative errors as those above, for they are harming the faithful. Cardinal Ottaviani subsequently acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite, and went on to live nine more years during which time he also warned against any kind of break with the Holy Father.

[quote=FrmrTrad]The next Ecumenical Council must diligently and dogmatically refute all such speculative errors as those above, for they are harming the faithful. Cardinal Ottaviani subsequently acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite, and went on to live nine more years during which time he also warned against any kind of break with the Holy Father.
[/quote]

What you are referring to when you say he “subsequently acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite” he has so strongly condemned, is a letter he “signed”, right?

Question: When the Cardinal signed that letter was totally he blind?

Answer: Yes, the Cardinal had lost his sight and was total blind. In othewords he was unable to read what he signed. He never made any verbal statements indicating that he “acknowledged the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite”.

But regardless of that: Who can deny the arguments laid out on the criticle study? They are exactly correct. Even you, a Former Trad, will have to admit that.

In my estimation, blind people are not unable to know what they are signing. Card. Ottaviani made two statements affirming the Pauline rite, not one, and he lived for 8-9 years after those statements, during which time he gave interview(s) and could easily have said that his ‘true view’ was suppressed. Instead, during those interview(s) he affirmed that it is wrong to break with the Holy Father.

I think it is important to remember that Card. Ottaviani was writing his “Intervention” at a time prior to the release of the Pauline rite. At that time, the theologians and others in the Church were operating on the rite with the assumption that it was in a draft form. Prior to something being codified or finalized, theologians comment on possible aspects and problems, but once the Holy Ghost seals a decision with the power of the keys, the Church has resolved the matter in question, and then in faith we know how to see it properly. Card. Ottaviani affirmed the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite of mass, and he was correct to do so.

It strikes me that this essay of his, being circulated now, would be akin to an Iconoclast circulating in the early 400s various parchments written by those who had debated the use of icons in the Church, and trying to argue from those drafts and discussions that sacred art is problematic and idolatrous. The point in response would be that the Church had decided that it is not idolatrous, and we accept that because we trust the power of the keys, notwithstanding the theologians who opined otherwise prior to the decision, some of whom may have had reasonable-seeming arguments. Similarly, we trust that the Church cannot issue a liturgy of sacrilegious, heretical, or other divisive nature. To derive the horrid conclusion that this has happened, “traditionalists” engage in various forms of erroneous reasoning, which have been partly outlined in posts 191-197 of this thread.

I was once in the spiritual situation in which you may possibly now be (I can’t be certain, of course): Concerned about what I saw in Church, I began to cast about for something more holy, and for explanations about what was happening. I developed a ticklish ear (2 Tim 4:3) and began to walk in things too sublime for me (Ps 131). I recovered when I realized that form, matter, and intent are intact for all the Pauline rites in the Church. Putting faith first allowed me to understand correctly, which is what St. Augustine said: I believe in order to understand.

I think I developed a ticklish ear because of an impatience in my disordered nature, and I have learned that it was wrong for me to ignore the wise counsel of others and to try to branch out on my own. The “traditionalist” literature is rife with half-truths, and each day I pray for the intercession of St. Pius X, as it is in his name that much error is promoted. Those who wish to pray for unity could do likewise! Imagine the din offered daily to St. Pius X, people with judgment in their hearts invoking his name.

Can anyone find a 1969 Missal online? We were discussing The Ottaviani Intervention on another e-mail list and I wanted to compare it to the 1962 Missal and what we have today. Thanks!

[quote=RSiscoe]When the New Mass was first being introduced, Cardinal Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes (the Holy office is the Vatican tribunal responsible for uprooting heresy and protecting the purity of the Catholic faith) came out with a scathing letter against it. Soon thereafter, the Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced, a nd the New Mass was imposed on the Church.

The following is what the Cardinal said in his cover letter Pope Paul VI. And keep in mind that what the Cardinal was condemning was the new mass in its most pure condition and without any “abuses”. The mass had not yet been poorly translated into the vernacular; the Priest was still facing the altar, there were no altar girls, no communion in the hand, and the words of consecration had not been changed (since the change was made in the translation to the vernacular). Yet, even its most pristine state, the Cardinal felt it his duty to warn Paul VI of the serious consequences that could result from this “innovation”.

Cardinal Ottaviani: "Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

  1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, **the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery. **

  2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

**Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily. **

Continue…

[/quote]

AMEN TO THIS!!!

[quote=EddieArent]Can anyone find a 1969 Missal online? We were discussing The Ottaviani Intervention on another e-mail list and I wanted to compare it to the 1962 Missal and what we have today. Thanks!
[/quote]

TRY: www.ecclesiadei.org

Thanks for the link. They have great materials, including the 1962 missal. But no 1969. I recently purchased two old St. Joseph 1962 and 1964 Missals off ebay. Reading the Missal and watching the Masses by Bishop Rifan from the Vancouver website are great ways to get accustomed to the Traditional Liturgy.

[quote=RSiscoe]When the New Mass was first being introduced, Cardinal Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes (the Holy office is the Vatican tribunal responsible for uprooting heresy and protecting the purity of the Catholic faith) came out with a scathing letter against it. Soon thereafter, the Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced, a nd the New Mass was imposed on the Church…

[/quote]

It was simply not up to Ottaviani to reject the new Mass whose prommulgation was immanent.

He got canned because he placed his pride and arrogance ahead of the Church. If he were still around, he would make a prime candidate for “maximum leader” of the SSPX.

Good riddance…

[quote=MrS]And this is detailed even more in the Michael Davis work Time Bombs of Vatican II.

“Anti-Trads” for want of a better name, really don’t see how the Mass, while still licit and valid, and holy, has been “dumbed down” to appeal to Protestant intervention and desires.

Scott Hahn has said, the good is the enemy of the best, when referring to Catholicism, and any thing else that is less than the whole deposit of faith. This could also be said of the NO. Not that it is the enemy of the best, but the fruits of the abuses that resulted surely are.
[/quote]

Davis is a polemicist, not a serious journalist. Always consider the source…

[quote=MrS]And this is detailed even more in the Michael Davis work Time Bombs of Vatican II.

“Anti-Trads” for want of a better name, really don’t see how the Mass, while still licit and valid, and holy, has been “dumbed down” to appeal to Protestant intervention and desires.

Scott Hahn has said, the good is the enemy of the best, when referring to Catholicism, and any thing else that is less than the whole deposit of faith. This could also be said of the NO. Not that it is the enemy of the best, but the fruits of the abuses that resulted surely are.
[/quote]

To even suggest the Novus Ordo Mass is “dumbed down” in comparison to the Tridentine Mass is to show abject ignorance of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and indeed, the Catholic Church.

[quote=Franciscum]It was simply not up to Ottaviani to reject the new Mass whose prommulgation was immanent.

He got canned because he placed his pride and arrogance ahead of the Church. If he were still around, he would make a prime candidate for “maximum leader” of the SSPX.

Good riddance…
[/quote]

Judging by youR irritation, you must have read some of his criticle study of the New Mass. Unable to refute the truth of it, you call him prideful and arrogant. He was not placing his pride and arrogance ahead of the Church, as you claim; He was doing his job of trying to protect the faith. He was, afterall, in charge of the Holy Office under three Popes, and it was his responsibility to protect the Church from errors. It was his job to speak out if he saw a problem, and he did.

I WISH WE HAD A FEW PRELATES TODAY THAT HAD HALF THE COURAGE OF CARDINAL OTTAVIANI - HALF!

[quote=RSiscoe]Judging by youR irritation, you must have read some of his criticle study of the New Mass. Unable to refute the truth of it, you call him prideful and arrogant. He was not placing his pride and arrogance ahead of the Church, as you claim; He was doing his job of trying to protect the faith. He was, afterall, in charge of the Holy Office under three Popes, and it was his responsibility to protect the Church from errors. It was his job to speak out if he saw a problem, and he did.

[/quote]

Whose criticle (sic) study of the New Mass? Simply put, I don’t really care what other humans feel. I follow God through His Church.

Ottaviani obviously wasn’t doing his job or he wouldn’t have been canned. To suggest that he alone was doing his job, and everyone else (including the Pope) was slacking is simply rediculous.

It does however make for great urban legend. Maybe even a movie one day…

"The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences** and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.**

:amen: That says it all.

  • Joe

"The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences* and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants."***



All I know is the Church has approved the Novus Ordo Mass, thanks be to God. The Tridentine Mass is no longer the nromative Mass. End of discussion.

Sorry you’ll likely continue to waste your life on debating this non-issue…

[quote=Franciscum]"The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod***, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants."*

All I know is the Church has approved the Novus Ordo Mass, thanks be to God. The Tridentine Mass is no longer the nromative Mass. End of discussion.

Sorry you’ll likely continue to waste your life on debating this non-issue…
[/quote]

Wow, it seems you already formulated DOCTRINE on this issue: APART from what the OFFICIAL position of the Church is: See: POPE JOHN PAUL II: “Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei” document of 1988. Funny how you seem to brush to the side (in a misguided false perception) what the MAJORITY of catholics are realizing and flocking in masses to: the Latin Tridentine Mass. The only advice I could give you, let go of the 1970’s and get with the PRESNT and LATEST VATICAN dictates, not PERSONAL opinion.
I also notice: your name is Franciscus: let me guess: Franciscan?? Well, no surprise from an order that has become very liberal and into liberation theology: one of your own: “Fr” Leonardo Boff? FRANCISCANS YES: Friars of the Renewal, Franciscans of the Immaculata, and Mother Angelica’s Friars.
PLEASE: stop trying to convince all that there is no longer ANY value to the Tridentine Mass: all are smarter than that: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_7.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_28_1.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_28_2.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_115v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_210.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_200.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_37.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_22.gif

[quote=Franciscum]It was simply not up to Ottaviani to reject the new Mass whose prommulgation was immanent.

He got canned because he placed his pride and arrogance ahead of the Church. If he were still around, he would make a prime candidate for “maximum leader” of the SSPX.

Good riddance…
[/quote]

PRIDE?: No, no, here you probably mean HERETICS such as Hans Kung(should be excommunicated) Karl Rahner, Charles Curran, Richard McBrian, Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, and other PRIDFUL heretics who are disobedient to all that is CATHOLIC:
Ottaviani, fortold the disaster that Pope Paul VI woul later mention in 1972: “through some crack, the smoke of satan has entered the Church, it is in the path of AUTO-demolition.”(POPE PAUL VI). smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_135.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_131.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_5_130.gif

[quote=Marines]:amen: That says it all.

  • Joe
    [/quote]

AMEN HERE: a 33 year old YOUNG guy who LOVES TRADITION not Catholic/protestantism

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.