Posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:15 AM PDT by NYer
That's the Holy Spirit speaking, pal.
Cardinal Ottaviani's, Prefect of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, and 2nd in authority only to him, Condemnation of the novus ordo missae to Montini, Paul VI:Cardinal Ottaviani published an intervention, not a condemnation. He published it before the Novus Ordo was finalized. 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 funny thing is that some of the changes are right in front of your eyes. The portion you cite from the GIRM’s article 7, as cited by Ottaviani’s intervention, read:
"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (*3) For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to 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) (*4)"As changed before the Novus Ordo was promulgated, and as it is now, it reads:
'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"So the very reasons for Ottaviani’s change in views are in front of your face, and they entirely negate your claims. There are literally dozens of examples of Sacrificial language now, whereas the version he objected to didn’t have these things.
Follow his example, admit that the Novus Ordo as it was changed by the Pope is perfectly valid and Catholic.
patent +AMDG
Montini, antipope Paul VI, posing with the six protestant ministers who helped the apostate Bugnini formulate the heretical new mass.Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass? They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it..
patent +AMDG
You and your fellow LIARS, should be aware that this "document" of renunciation was placed in front of Cardinal Ottaviani to sign when he was in the hospital AFTER HE HAD BECOME BLIND! HE READ IT!!?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!Ah yes. We can see the dramatic changes to just one small section of the Novus Ordo GIRM that were made after Ottaviani’s intervention. We can see how many of his objections were actually addressed. But when, in response to those changes, he withdraws his objections – something a normal sane person would do – we are told he wasn’t even capable enough to have really meant it.
He’s a great authority, a bulwark of orthodoxy.
Until he does something we don’t like, then he’s a blind invalid, incapable of having the Novus Ordo and the GIRM even read to him so he can see if he still has any objections or not.
What a convincing position you have there.
patent +AMDG
I have read part of it, and it is most enlightening. Takes the wind out of the sails of a couple posters on FR who decry the Novus Ordo Mass. I wonder if they have ever read it.
'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"So the very reasons for Ottaviani’s change in views are in front of your face, and they entirely negate your claims. There are literally dozens of examples of Sacrificial language now, whereas the version he objected to didn’t have these things.
Thank you for your research and comparison.
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
According to the documentation published at the link I provided (the official GIRM):
"3. The celebration of Mass also proclaims the sublime mystery of the Lord's real presence under the eucharistic elements, which Vatican Council II6 and other documents of the Church's magisterium7 have reaffirmed in the same sense and as the same teaching that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith.8 The Mass does this not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that spirit and expression of reverence and adoration in which the eucharistic liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people are invited in Holy Week on Holy Thursday and on the solemnity of Corpus Christi to honor this wonderful sacrament in a special way by their adoration. "
Furthermore, it restores the original practice of receiving under both species ... something NOT DONE in the Tridentine Mass.
"14. Moved by the same spirit and pastoral concern, Vatican Council II was able to reevaluate the Tridentine norm on communion under both kinds. No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone. The Council thus gave permission for the reception of communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this more explicit form of the sacramental sign offers a special means of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful are taking part.21
<>One of the observers, Max Thurian, a protestant minister from Taize, converted and was ordained a Catholic Priest. I guess he conspired to make the Catholic Mass Protestant so he, a Protestant, could convert to Protestantism and be condemned by many of his former protestant friens. Fiendishly clever...<>
<> When Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, he wasn't Teaching?
<> When he reconvened Vatican Two after the death of John Paul 23rd, he wasn't governing?
<> When he ordained priests and offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily, heard Confessions, administered Confirmations etec,he wasn't sanctifying?<>
<> It is worth noting that some commentators have referred to the "First Ottavaiani intervention" as meaning his letter from the Holy Office to the ArchBishop of Boston re Fr. Feeney. That letter condemns just the sort of private judgement that hdmz, ultima et al engage in daily. What the first Ottaviani intervention says is that their actions are no different than Feeney's:<>
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency's most devoted,
+ F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor. (Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
<> I think this bears repeating for all those sedes and schizmeisters out there<>
and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation -------------------------------------------------------------------
BTTT! Common sense thinking triumphs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.