Two dear priestly readers sent us reminders of the death of this, one of the last great Romans - the last Secretary of the Holy Office and first Prefect (pro-prefect) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -, including some personal memories:
On the late great Cardinal Ottaviani, I had the privilege of assisting at his private Mass in the chapel of his apartments in the Holy Office twice. Each time, we had breakfast with His Eminence following the Mass. On the second visit, he presented me with his book, which he autographed, "Il Baluardo". He pointed to himself, and said, "Io sono Il Baluardo della Chiesa", ("I am the watchman of the Church"), and has been quoted as saying elsewhere, "I am the watchman of the Church, even though I am blind". The Cardinal suffered from diabetes, and had very limited eyesight. But he was so justly proud of his role as Prefect for the Congregation of the Holy Office, because he knew how critical it was at that point to be vigilant for the Faith.
His Eminence was very devoted to an orphanage he had established for the orphans of Trastevere, his native sector of Rome. It was, I believe, under the Patronage of St. Agnes. Every Sunday, he would be driven out to the orphanage to spend the afternoon with his dear orphans. Here was a most powerful and busy Prince of the Church who had the humility and love to tend to the little ones of Christ.
Another dear Priest sent us this lesson of the Cardinal to all Priests:
What I'd like to mention especially, though, is something Fr. X. told me. He said that before Mass, when the cardinal would pray the Formula Intentionis, he would raise his voice a little at the words, "Et pro felici statu Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae" ["and for the good state of the Holy Roman Church"]. It seems to me that if -every- priest would say the whole Formula Intentionis before every Mass, things would undoubtedly get better. I cannot believe that we would be in the current state or remain in it if all priests would faithfully say this prayer.
Ego volo celebráre Missam, et confícere Corpus et Sánguinem Dómini nostri Iesu Christi, iuxta ritum sanctæ Románæ Ecclésiæ, ad laudem omnipoténtis Dei totiúsque Cúriæ triumphántis, ad utilitátem meam totiúsque Cúriæ militántis, pro ómnibus qui se commendavérunt oratiónibus meis in génere et in spécie, et pro felíci statu sanctæ Románæ Ecclésiæ. Amen.
Gáudium cum pace, emendatiónem vitæ, spátium veræ pæniténtiæ, grátiam et consolatiónem Sancti Spíritus, perseverántiam in bonis opéribus tríbuat nobis omnípotens et miséricors Dóminus. Amen.
May he rest in peace. [Image: Cardinal Ottaviani celebrates Mass on December 10, 1963, in the Church of Santa Maria di Loreto, Rome - source: Biblioteche di Roma - Cinecittà Luce archives. / Recess for several days.]
30 comments:
In 1964 (that wondrous year, and perfect time-frame to hold a Catholic council) during the first debates of the Council, concerning the Liturgy, Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced: "[at] a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation."
Liturgical Time Bombs
It doesn't take a member of Mensa to see how this Council was taken over by liberal revolutionaries, who wanted to protestantize the Church from within. They succeeded!
It would be good to make a serious effort to collect materials for the life of this man, since living witnesses are still around but won't be for much longer. The same goes for many other people in the traditionalist movement; Abp. Lefebvre is well served by his fraternity in this respect, but there are many others whose memory needs to be preserved out of respect and acknowledgement,
"It seems to me that if -every- priest would say the whole Formula Intentionis before every Mass, things would undoubtedly get better."
Let us also not forget that the Missal of Pope John XXIII lacks the additional collects against the persecutors of the Church, and for the pope, that were regularly said on days of lower rank. One could point out an infelicitous connection between the abolition of these collects and the decline in prayer for the Church and the pope.
They would be easy to restore.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and all the souls who recognized the errors of the NO Mass of Bugnini rest in peace. AMEN.
Has anyone written a biography about him yet? Is there one that readers would recommend?
Regarding Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani:
The book "Harvard To Harvard" was written in 2006 by Rt. Rev Gabriel Gibbs (R.I.P.).
The book features a great deal of inside information in regard to Father Leonard Feeney.
On pages 144, 145 and 146 of said book, Abbot Gabriel stated that several attempts were made by the Saint Benedict Center to seek "reconcilation" with Rome in regard to the "Feeney Case."
On one such occasion, Father John Feeney, brother of Father Leonard Feeney, "approached Rome on the matter sometime in the mid-1960s - and was rebuffed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani."
The book documents the "unsympathetic" manner in which Cardinal Ottaviani treated Father Leonard Feeney.
To even consider whether any censures would be lifted against Father Feeney, Cardinal Ottaviani demanded that Father Feeney "would have to go to the doorstep of the apostolic delegation in Washington, call in the newspapers, and, on his knees, say that he was wrong in opposing Church teaching on doctrine, that he was sorry and that he was ready to do penance."
Cardinal Ottaviani informed Father Feeney's brother that "then, and only then would the lifting of any censures be considered."
Abbot Gabriel reiterated that for years, the Saint Benedict Center's "involvement" with Cardinal Ottaviani was unpleasant.
On September 8, 1970, Bishop Humberto Sousa Medeiros was appointed Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts.
Archbishop Medeiros distanced himself from Cardinal Ottaviani's stance toward Father Feeney.
In 1972, thanks to Archbishop Medeiros' peaceful efforts to bring Rome and Father Feeney together in dignified fashion, the so-called "Boston Heresy Case" (heresy, of course, was not the case), was consigned to history with Father Feeney's simple profession of the Athanasian Creed (Father Feeney's choice.
Tom
Cardinal Medeiros would not have acted without prior Roman approval. It should be noted that, by 1970, Cardinal Ottaviani had already been replaced by Cardinal Šeper.
NC
Are there any known miracles atrributed to this holy man of the holy mother church?
Though i dont know i will place my prayer here (if the admins allows it):
Cardinal Ottaviani, servant of eternal GOD and servant of the mystical body of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the holy mother church, pray for the church, pray for us and especially for me and my health.
these all in the name of father+ and son+ and the holy spirit+
+Amen+
In all sincerity, can Rorate Caeli please explain the implicit critical tone toward Second Vatican in recent threads, on the one hand, and the apparent RC policy that our present pope must be treated with lightest [if any] of kid gloves despite his involvement with, and permanent dogged defense of this council?
How can our popes be exonerated from the nature of this council and what it has wrought?
He is not to be "treated" with anything or in any way: Peter is not a subject, Peter is the Sovereign.
Henry Luce, "Time Magazine", attacked the great Cardinal in that magazine of record while he offered fawning coverage of the LSD-Dropping, John Courtney Murray.
Luce, as an internationalist and capitalist, worked diligently to subvert The Catholic Church so as to weaken its teaching against Capitaism
"Culture Wars" has the story
New Catholic,
OK, so how can Peter the Sovereign not have any meaningful culpability for this type of council and its aftermath, given his sovereignty?
They were certainly very well plan, but succeeded for a period of time, now most of those liberal who wanted to protestantize the Church are today in their 80s and running out of time, today we can see the slow and steady rebuilding, again like any period of heresy within the Catholic Church, it would then take a few centuries to completely clean them out, this I believe is just the beginning of the cleaning process, first those still in power known they are running out of time and the writting is on the wall, such as over heard a certain person in power telling a younger priest that this coming generation would not follow what the revolutionist start and it will be all for nothing, soon or later everything will be back to Traditional and it is very sad for their side.
Our Lord said they can never win, they can try and may causes some damages and even to near brink of total distruction, but it's all hold true: "The Gate of Hell shall never previal" Pray and pray that the restoration will quicken. St. Michael The Archangel defence us in battle.
I go to the NO to evangenlize often, when enter into the Church geneflect on one knee toward the Tabernacle and kneeling during Holy,Holy, Holy, received from the priest only on my knee and on my tongue, on their sign of peace, kneel and pray, well the liberal don't like that, but I keep reminding myself I am here for Jesus and do my act of charity, take a page out of St. Francis, sometime the silent evangelize do the most good, this I believe, now when I look around, many follow what I am doing and plus I praise Our Divine Lord, as few had come over to the Traditional side now and I keep praying that more would come. All is not loss, the more they abuse the liturgical and the more they abuse the Eucharist the more the Traditional will grow.
mikeB
May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace, Amen. Whatever his relationship with Fr. Feeney, let us remember his letter to Pope Paul VI and the accompanying study known as the Ottaviani Intervention. It was a classic defense of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and a thoughtful critique of the Novus Ordo.
PEH
That giant of a man virtually embodied Catholic Tradition and so what the Fathers of The civilisation of love and The New Springtime did to him publicly at The Second Vatican Council was the sounding of the toxin that the new order had arrived.
During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:
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.
So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.[1]
The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session. When we laugh, we do not think, and, had they not been laughing, at least some of the bishops might have wondered whether, perhaps, Cardinal Ottaviani had a point.
http://www.remnantnewspap
er.com/Archives/archive-bug.htm
http://www.cfnews.org/Ott-Fenton.htm
And, of course, he was an opponent of J C Murray and his Religious Liberty ideology which was "The American Proposition" which,distilled to its Satanic essence, is; Catholic Church? We don't need to steekeen Catholic Church."
http://www.thecatholicworld.com/archived_files/issue_3-4_08/PDFs/article_2_pdf.pdf
LOL Toxin..unintended yet funny.
Tocsin, of course
In their book, The Pope The Council and the Mass, J. Likoudis and K. Whitehead assert that Cardinal Ottaviani went on to effectively repudiate his intervention, and the book authors chastise those who mention the intervention without the subsequent repudiation.
This is what they reproduced in their book from the cardinal:
"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the discourse by the holy father on the question of the new ordo missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public audiences of november 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘doctrinal note' [on the novus ordo] and the activity of the militia sanctae mariae wide diffusion and success."
Anybody have any thoughts on this?
It hardly seems a "repudiation"... More like a nota bene.
CARDINAL OTTAVIANI AND THE CUF CONNECTION
By Michael Davies
...For the purposes of this article I will be confining myself to the treatment accorded to the Ottaviani Intervention in PCM. The subject is discussed on pages 128-132. The Authors do not quote so much as a word from the Study itself, just a dozen lines from the covering letter. Then they go on at once to refer to the spurious letter to Dom Lafond which Cardinal Ottaviani had been tricked into signing.
...The letter to Dom Lafond was certainly known in France as widely as the Intervention itself, both through the efforts of those wishing to discredit the Intervention, and then through their exposure by Jean Madiran. It was publicized in England by Father John Flanagan in the journal of the Catholic Priest Association, which was read widely during the nineteen-seventies by leading personalities in English-speaking conservative Catholic circles. In 1977 I published a pamphlet entitled "The New Mass" which received a wide circulation in Britain and the U.S.A.. It included the complete text of the Dom Lafond letter, together with an account of Jean Madiran's expose of the plot to discredit the Intervention. ..
..." They made this statement after having studied my pamphlet, and knowing full well that the Cardinal had, in his statement to Madiran, gone on record to disavow the alleged retraction.Would they, perhaps, like to suggest that Madiran was deliberately lying, that he made the whole story up, that he challenged the Cardinal's secretary to meet him in court knowing that he would certainly be proved wrong? The enemies of Madiran and the traditionalist movement, the men who wished to discredit the Intervention, were all powerful in Rome at that time. They would have had no difficulty in arranging for the Cardinal to be visited by a group of witnesses whose testimony would not have been doubted in a civil or ecclesiastical court. He could then have confirmed to them that he had indeed signed the letter to Dom Lafond, that he was aware of its contents, that he agreed with its contents, and he no longer had any reservations concerning the New Mass. The Intervention would thus have been totally defused and Madiran totally discredited. But no such action was taken. Msgr. Agustoni was dismissed, and Madiran's testimony remains unchallenged to this day. It is hardly surprising that, after presenting their readers with a travesty of the truth, the Authors of PCM took care not to include any reference to my own pamphlet which contained the full story...
I was a teenager when I first heard of Cardinal Ottaviani, he has been a hero of mine ever since that time.
May he rest in peace.
P.S.
There were rumors of intimidation of Cardinal Ottaviani surrounding his so called "repudiation" of the Intervention. He was very old and ill when this occurred.
Cardinal Medeiros acted on his own and in the true Spirit of Christ in having establish contacts with Father Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center.
Unlike Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani's cold and unfortunate demands, Father Feeney was asked simply to profess one of four creeds (he selected the Athanasian Creed).
Pope Paul VI was then pleased to have consigned the Feeney Affair to history.
Cardinal Ottaviani's approach to Father Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center was a flop.
Conversely, Cardinal Medeiros' humility and determination to approach Father Feeney in peaceful and dignified fashion was a success.
That approach is akin to Pope Benedict XVI's approach in regard to Catholic Traditionalists who for years have faced persecution from Churchmen who have abused authority.
There are Churchmen in power who sometimes abuse their authority.
Fortunately, as long as the Church also features such humble and peaceful Churchmen as Cardinal Medeiros, solutions to difficulties that arise within Holy Mother Church can be solved and consigned to history.
Tom
You certainly will not read or hear any criticism of Cardinal Medeiros, may he rest in peace, from us. But, unless you have access to the archives of the Archdiocese of Boston and of the Holy Office for those years, it simply cannot be said that Rome was not aware of anything - Cardinal Medeiros was well aware of all that had happened regarding the matter in the preceding decades.
Fr Feeney coldly refused the invitation to go to Rome and defend his "teachings"and so he was ditched for his determined and dissolute disobedience.
If only The Catholic Church still enforced discipline like it did back in the day.
And so, apparently, the blame for that refusal to go to Rome is not to be attributed to the disobedient Priest, Fr Feeney, no, the blame is to be assigned to the "cold and unfortunate demands." of the mean old Cardinal Ottaviani.
Sheesh...That is classic liberalism in action. Blame somebody else for your own failings
Lovely memory of the great Cardinal: thank you.
As for those sympathetic to Father Feeney, well, the Saint Benedict Ctr. ultimate split into, I think, seven different factions. Glad he came back to the Church. As for those factions, I cannot account for all of them. Some are in full communion with Rome.
Mike B
I applaud your Efforts!!! I too go the N.O on a regular basis, not out of choice but because my PP only offers the EF on Sunday.
It is my opinion that all Trad Catholics who attend the N.O on a regular basis (as there is no regular EF) should attempt to use the tactics of the revolutionaries against them. For men that could mean volunteering to serve the Sunday Mass (even if it means serving with girls) and to do so reverently, for a women to veil whilst in Church and for all of us to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue, one hopes that the mere presence of reverence will convert many!!! At the risk of committing the Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc fallacy I am sure that the decision of one local permanent Deacon to receive Jesus kneeling was down to good example from others.
I say this because I am of the firm opinion that lots of people simply do not know holiness and reverence but will recognize it when they see it. I myself was a 'conservative Catholic’ who was fine with standing to receive Communion in the hand, no especial dislike for guitar Masses etc.
Then after listening to the beauty of the Divine Liturgy as celebrated by our Eastern Brothers I began to become more traditional, since the first time I assisted at the EF I have never looked back.
Now praised be Jesus Christ I am meeting a representative of the ICCRS next month in London to discuss the possibility of trying my vocation with them, at which point I must ask the advice of some of my fellow readers in the UK, when one has been invited to dine at a Private Member’s club as the guest of an existing member (as is the Cannon who handles Vocational enquiries from the UK) then what would be the appropriate attire in which to present oneself?
To "I am not Spartacus":
In instances of genuine heresy, by all means, require full, public retractions.
However, in case you're ignorant, the Vatican has since decided that in the case of Fr. Feeney there was no heresy. No so-called "Feeeneyite" is required to retract any proposition or teaching in order to remain within or return to regular canonical status.
I happen to think that Fr. Feeney was wrong not to go to Rome (even as a defender of Fr. Feeney's teaching, I'm rather reticent to agree with the prudence of some of his methods). It was a matter of discipline for which he was said to be excommunicated (and yes, I know his defenders dispute the legality of the excommunication). But had he not engaged in some disobedience, at least when ordered by the Jesuits to leave Boston, Archbishop Cushing would simply have crushed the faithful at St. Benedict Center who depended on Fr. Feeney to defend them and their orthodoxy regarding "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus." The good of souls prevails, and Fr. Feeney apparently thought that meant staying put in Boston/Still River and waiting out the storm. As far as I know, Cardinal Medeiros eventually deemed that there was no reason to rehash all the disciplinary irregularities and proceeded without reference to them; what had been done had been done.
So, where there's heresy, by all means hold feet to the fire. But what about when there isn't heresy? Where for almost forty years now the Church has held that Fr. Feeney's teaching, and defense of his prudential decisions, is no barrier to communion? No heresy, no need for public retraction, right? In which case, the position of the Vatican I guess is simply that Card. Ottaviani's understanding of the facts, or else his decisions regarding how to respond to said facts, was incorrect.
Like I said, I personally wish that Fr. Feeney had gone to Rome. But I wouldn't have been surprised if, had he ended up there, he'd been order to stay put and the faithful in St. Benedict Center left to hang. In the end, he lived long enough to find vindication. As far as I know, the resolution of the canonical issue is, as of 2010 or so, complete; all the groups originating from the original St. Benedict Center are in full and regular communion with the Church and their local dioceses. Cardinal Ottaviani had nothing to do with this and his methods in treating the "Feeneyite" interpretation of EENS as heretical and requiring public retraction were both unnecessary, counter-productive, and unjust.
Would to God that the man Cardinal Ottaviani required full and public retraction from was Cardinal Cushing of Boston, part of the shame that has been the Catholic leadership in Boston.
Thank you.
~Bonifacius
A true Roman lion!
"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 suspicion, 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 forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith."
Indeed, when Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote this no wonder traditional Roman Catholics are aghast at cardinals, bishops & priests who implement any of the changes implicated in the NO service such as use of the vernacular; loss of genuflections and signs of The Cross; Holy Communion handed out by lay people in the hand to those standing up or sitting down; even concelebration of The Mass and other novelties associated with the liturgical revolution.
The good and holy Cardinals have already spoken on our behalf.
Bonifacius; It is my understanding that Fr. Feeney suspected that he was to be charged and tried at Rome. When he asked the charge against him, he was told that he would be told the charge when he arrived. Since this was not consistent with his rights under Canon Law, he did not answer a fatally flawed summons. A Loyal Reader
Dear Bonifacius. Anonymous accused the great man of abusing his authority when the plain and simple truth is that he faithfully discharged his authority.
He was, falsely, accused of being cold and as having issued unfortunate demands.
The fact that the great Cardinal was also right when it came to the matter under discussion remains, I think, a burr under the conscience saddled with Feeneyism but this ain't a thread about that doctrine and how it ought be properly understood.
The particulars of that case are immaterial. The great Roman, Cardinal Ottaviani, acted justy in the matter and Fr Feeney did not.
Post a Comment