Cardinal Ottaviani published an intervention, not a condemnation.
“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error. “ – Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Paul VI accompanying the Critical Study
This is not a condemnation???
He published it before the Novus Ordo was finalized.
The letter and accompanying Critical Study (later named the Ottaviani Intervention) were presented after the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969. The Novus Ordo was set to be made obligatory on November 30, 1969. It was precisely because of the actions of Bacci and Ottaviani that the Novus Ordo was delayed and revised.
After discussions with the Pope and further revisions, he withdrew the intervention. You rely on his authority and his objections for your position, be he withdrew them, and so the very authority you cite speaks against you.
The circumstances of Ottaviani’s supposed retraction are extremeley suspicious. Bacci never recanted his position.
'7. At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice.13 For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross,14 Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.15"
The first sentence could be read two ways: “At the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”
Or, “At Mass, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice.”
The first is Protestant, the second is Catholic. Guess which meaning all of the modernists in the church today read into it????
Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass?
No, but here's what they think of it.
"The new eucharistic prayers have a structure corresponding to that of the Lutheran Mass." – Roger Schultz, Protestant observer at Vatican II
"nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." - M. G. Siegle, Protestant professor of dogmatic theology.
They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it.
There were no Protestant observers at Trent. They were invited, but none came.
Bellarmine
I just couldn't let these posts pass without commentAh, then I have succeeded! Always feel free to comment.
Precisely, and precisely my point. The thing they critiqued is not the thing that today exists. Many try to use their words to justify their present day critiques of the Mass as it now exists. However, the Cardinals didn’t critique the present day Mass, they critiqued something that was changed.He published it before the Novus Ordo was finalized.The letter and accompanying Critical Study (later named the Ottaviani Intervention) were presented after the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969. The Novus Ordo was set to be made obligatory on November 30, 1969. It was precisely because of the actions of Bacci and Ottaviani that the Novus Ordo was delayed and revised.
In response to their concerns, the thing they critiqued was changed. They were successful. Therefore, the resort to their words to critique the present Mass is false, as they didn’t mean that by their words.
The Holy Spirit has often used individuals like Cardinal Ottaviani to implore a Pope to do his duty. It seems to me that it did so here.
Re Bacci: Did he retain his objections though? The thing he critiqued no longer existed, he had no reason to withdraw it. If you criticize the new tax bill, and the tax bill is voted down, do you need to withdraw your criticism? No, of course not. But then a new tax bill is proposed that is similar to the old one, but different with respect to several of the things you criticized. It is voted on, and passed. But you don’t critique this one.After discussions with the Pope and further revisions, he withdrew the intervention. You rely on his authority and his objections for your position, be he withdrew them, and so the very authority you cite speaks against you.The circumstances of Ottaviani’s supposed retraction are extremeley suspicious. Bacci never recanted his position.
One cannot necessarily assume that you approve of this new tax bill, but it is equally true that one cannot necessarily assume you disapproved either, as you haven’t spoken either way. If you want to show that either Cardinal disapproved of the Novus Ordo as it was refined, you need to quote them, not assume.
As to the circumstances of Cardinal Ottaviani’s retraction, is he a man or a mouse? Just how impotent do you view the man to be? He is responsible for his words, and you cannot both cite him as authority and cite him as lacking facilities, which is what HDMZ seems to do.
The first sentence could be read two ways: “At the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”A time ago ultima ratio and I debated over the Sacrificial language in the GIRM. I produced a compilation of the language in the first part, and he chose not to respond to it in any meaningful way. If you like, I will produce the same for you, and you can guess what meaning was meant by the Church. I don’t care what modernists and heretics read into it. These are the Sacrificial language the Church can use that will get through to these people, any more than there is no Sacrificial language the Church can use to get through to some Trads.Or, “At Mass, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice.”
The first is Protestant, the second is Catholic. Guess which meaning all of the modernists in the church today read into it????
Mere words, entirely meaningless. Name one Protestant that has adopted the Novus Ordo. Not a single action in 30 years to follow up on two sentences by two Protestants. That isn’t much of an approval.Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass?No, but here's what they think of it."The new eucharistic prayers have a structure corresponding to that of the Lutheran Mass." – Roger Schultz, Protestant observer at Vatican II
"nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." - M. G. Siegle, Protestant professor of dogmatic theology.
I hope you’ll forgive a cut and paste, as I’d hate to redo research already done. From a previous post to ultima ratio:They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it.There were no Protestant observers at Trent. They were invited, but none came.
[patent said the remainder]LOL. You won’t support a single statement, and now you call on me to support one of mine when I have already provided so many citations? Fine. This is a fundamental difference between us. I don’t whine about the burden, I just do it.[patent said]They were there as advisors, as they were at Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II. They were not there to WRITE it.[ultima said]Sources, please. Back up your statement. How do you know this? How do ou know they did not write it? How do we know they were at Trent and Vatican I, Vatican II? Who were these people. Names, please. Dates. Publishers.
As to whether Protestants were at the Councils, you would only need to look at the documents themselves, which grant safe passage to the Council for Protestatns, and then also grant safe passage back, afterwards. Trent practially begged them to come, and not just to come, but to propose ideas:
Being the fifth under thc Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the twenty-fifth day of January, MDLII.Trent later stated, though vaguely, that some had already been there:DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION
Whereas, in pursuance of the decrees made in the last Sessions, this holy and universal Synod has, during these days, most accurately and diligently treated of the things which relate to the most holy sacrifice of the mass, and to the sacrament of order, with the view that, in the Session held on this day, It might publish, as the Holy Ghost should have suggested, decrees on these subjects, and on the four articles concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which had been finally deferred to this Session ; and whereas it was thought that, in the interim, there would have presented themselves at this sacred and holy Council those who call themselves Protestants, for whose sake It had deferred the publication of the said articles, and to whom It had given the public faith, or a safe-conduct, that they might come freely and without any hesitation ; nevertheless, seeing that they have not as yet come, and the holy Synod has been petitioned in their name, that the publication which was to have been made on this day, be deferred to the following Session, an assured hope being held out that they will certainly be present long before that Session, upon receiving in the meanwhile a safe-conduct in a more ample form :-The same holy Synod, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios presiding, desiring nothing more ardently than to remove, from amongst the noble nation of Germany, all dissensions and schisms touchingreligion,and to provide for its tranquillity, peace and repose; being ready, should they come, both to receive them kindly, and to listen to them favourably, and trusting that they will come, not with the design of obstinately opposing the Catholic Faith, but of learning the truth, and that they will at last, as becomes those zealous for evangelical truth, acquiesce in the decrees and discipline of holy Mother Church; (this Synod) has deferred the next Session,--therein to publish and promulgate the matters aforesaid,--till the festival of St. Joseph, which will be on the nineteenth day of the month of March; in order that they may have sufficient time and leisure, not only to come, but also to propose, before that day arrives, whatsoever they may wish. And,- that It may take from them all cause for further delay, It freely gives and grants them the public faith,-or a safe-conduct, of the tenour and form hereafter set down. But it ordains and decrees, that, in the meantime, It will treat of the sacrament of matrimony,- and will give its decisions thereon, in addition to the publication of the above-named decrees, in the same Session, and will prosecute the subject of Reformation.
The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--certifies to all men, that, by the tenour of these presents, It grants and wholly concedes the public faith, and the fullest and most true security, which they entitle a safe-conduct, to all and singular the priests, electors, princes, dukes, marquisses, counts, barons, nobles, soldiers, commonalty, and to all other persons whatsoever, of what state, condition, or quality soever they may be, of the province and nation of Germany, and to the cities and other places thereof, and to all the ecclesiastical and secular persons, especially those of the Confession of Augsburg, who shall come, or shall be sent with them to this General Council of Trent, and to those that shall set forth, or have already repaired hither, by whatsoever name they are entitled, or may be designated,--to Come freely to this city of Trent, and there to remain, abide, sojourn, and to propose, speak, and treat of, examine and discuss any matters whatsoever together with the said Synod, and freely to present and set forth all whatsoever they may think fit, and any articles whatever, either in writing or by word of mouth, and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures, and by the words, passages, and reasons of the blessed Fathers, and to answer even, if it be needful, to the objections of the General Council, and to dispute, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance with those who have been selected by the Council, all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language being utterly discarded; and, in particular, that the controverted matters shall be treated of, in the aforesaid Council of Trent, according to sacred Scripture, and the traditions of the apostles, approved Councils, the consent of the Catholic Church, and the authorities of the holy Fathers; with this further addition, that they shall not be punished under pretence of religion, or of offences already committed, or that may be committed, in regard thereof; as also, that the divine offices shall not, on account of their presence, be in any way interrupted, either upon the road, or in any place during their progress, their stay, or their return, or in the city of Trent itself ; and that, upon these matters being concluded, or before they are concluded, if they, or any of them, shall wish, and whensover such is their or his pleasure, or the command and leave of their superiors, to return to their own homes, they shall forthwith be able at their good pleasure, to return freely and securely, without any let, obstacle, or delay, without injury done to their property, or to the honour also and persons of their attendants respectively,--notifying, however, this their purpose of withdrawing, to those who shall be deputed hereunto by the said Synod, that so, without deceit or fraud, proper measures may be taken for their safety.The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Trent confirms this:
The presidents laid before the general congregation of 15 October drafts of definitions of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction for discussion. These subjects occupied the congregations of theologians, among whom Gropper, Nausea, Tapper, and Hessels were especially prominent, and also the general congregations during the months of October and November. At the fourteenth session, held on 25 November, the dogmatic decree promulgated contained nine chapters on the dogma of the Church respecting the Sacrament of Penance and three chapters on extreme unction. To the chapters on penance were added fifteen canons condemning heretical teachings on this point, and four canons condemning heresies to the chapters on unction. The decree on reform treated the discipline of the clergy and various matters respecting ecclesiastical benefices. In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined; and other propositions which the council could not accept. Since the close of the last session both the theologians and the general congregations had been occupied in numerous assemblies with the dogma of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the ordination of priests, as well as with plans for new reformatory decrees. At the fifteenth session (25 January, 1552), in order to make some advances to the ambassadors of the Protestants, the decisions in regard to the subjects under consideration were postponed and a new safe-conduct, such as they had desired, was drawn up for them. Besides the three papal legates and Cardinal Madruzzo, there were present at Trent ten archbishops and fifty-four bishops, most of them from the countries ruled by the emperor. On account of the treacherous attack made by Maurice of Saxony on Charles V, the city of Trent and the members of the council were placed in danger; consequently, at the sixteenth session (23 April, 1552) a decree suspending the council for two years was promulgated. However, a considerably longer period of time elapsed before it could resume its sessions.. . . .
At the eighteenth session (25 Feb., 1562) the only matters decided were the publication of a decree concerning the drawing up of a list of forbidden books and an agreement as to a safe-conduct for Protestants.
Nevertheless Protestant observers have officially attended the last two councils. The ecumenical movement among Protestants is not to be confused with an ecumenical council, although they share a similar aim.The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001, entry on “council, ecumenical.” The last two councils, of course, were Vatican I and Vatican II.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG