Ottaviani's Intervention?

In the time that followed the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, there were many changes that took place in the everyday life of the Church.  Some may argue that they were more profound than not, but soon after the publication of the Apostolic Constitution, the Missal of Pope Paul VI, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite took effect.  Almost immeditately, Archbishop Lefebvre took action.  Now, there is debate among a number of people as to whether or not the actions that Lefebvre took were justified; some probably were and some probably weren't.  The end result is the existence of the Society of St. Pius X, a group with a highly irregular status (not excommunicated however).

During 1969, a number of theologians wrote what is formally referred to as the "Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass", but what many people know as the "Ottaviani Intervention."  The text details Archbishop Ottaviani's concerns regarding the revised Ordo Missae, and what effect the promulgation of such an Ordo would have upon the faithful.  Now, it should be pointed out that the Intervention was published prior to the release of the definitive text, and refers to an experimental text celebrated in Rome in 1967.  It is also evident that the text to which he refers has a few differences with the promulgated text (for example, he mentions a change to the second Memento of the Roman Canon that is not presently there).  Equally contentious is the existence of a future letter from Ottaviani where he apparently expresses much relief and satisfaction with the Holy Father's eventual response to his initial letter.

I'm not going to argue here the motives of Ottaviani in either letter, but simply want to draw a thread here.  I have generally thoroughly believed that in order to best argue one's point, it is necessary to understand your opponent's point.  The Ottaviani Intervention may form the beginnings of the arguments that the Society of St. Pius X has regarding the current texts.  Obviously, the text is afraid of revision of the Missal being too geared towards the appeasement of Protestants, and therefore softening of core Catholic theology.  I will address this point in a future post.  This is largely within the area of the reform of the Offertory prayers, which I have already discussed.  It is important, therefore to ask whether or not Ottaviani's document does bear any weight.  My personal belief is that it is a little alarmist, but that it served the purpose of calling for Rome to consider that there might be opposing views.  How would the Ordo Missae looked without this Intervention?  I personally do not know.  Perhaps there is a great deal that we owe to Ottaviani.  Perhaps, we owe him little.  Regardless, it is important to know that his letter does exist, and know what his concerns were.

The GIRM: Not Just for Priests!

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani; a mouthful of Latin, known in English generally as the "General Instruction of the Roman Missal."  In a nutshell, it's that beginning section of the Roman Missal that outlines how Mass is supposed to be said, not just on Sundays, but all days of the week.  In a generalization I can only back up with personal experience, it's the document that quite a few parishes seem to either neglect altogether, or may not even be aware exists.  Here, you'll find the rules that govern the choice of music in the Mass, who reads what and when, the choice of Eucharistic Prayer (yes, there are rules for that), and even what form Mass takes when the deacon is present.  Keep in mind that this discussion is restricted to the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, the Ordinary Form, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Why even bring up the GIRM now?  It's an easy read, and to tell you the truth, it's quite possibly one of those documents that we need to take a second look at now more than ever.  This Advent, 2011, those of us in the English-speaking world will be required to learn a new Mass translation.  This is GOOD NEWS!!!  It means that anyone with a slight knowledge of Latin, Italian, Spanish, or any Romance Language won't have to strain themselves trying to figure out how we arrived at the English translations we have now (for example, where did the other two mea culpa's go?).  What I suggest is simple: learn the GIRM also.  I hope to make two points for doing so...NOW.

1.  The Mass is universal.  The Mass of the Roman Rite, no matter what form, is a universal expression of    the Latin Church.  It's a unifying agent.  It's like the Force or something!  The Mass is where we offer to the Father the Body and Blood of the Son for our salvation and the salvation of all people living and dead.  And the same goes for all forms of the Eucharistic Liturgy, Byzantine, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Alexandrian, Antiochene, etc.  In fact, this argument goes with anyone practicing these rites too.  If we want to show our unity as Christians, it is important to show a uniformity in our worship, meaning that it is not up to individual parishes to alter the Liturgy according to their individual whims.  Plus, made-up on the spot rituals are often times long and dull.

2.  The Mass is of the people.  The Mass has 2000+ years of history behind it.  It unites us across time and space.  The Mass is something that has taken shape due to popular devotions.  The word Mass itself was given to the Roman Liturgy by the people, from the dismissal formula: Ite, Missa est.  The names of Masses (yes Masses have names) were also given by the people: Laetare and Gaudete for example.  It is not something that one group, out of unity with the rest of mankind can simply change at will.

So, how do these two points apply?  Well, by studying and learning the GIRM, I am suggesting that we can understand what the legitimate choices are at the Mass, what the appropriate forms of the various parts of the Mass are, and avoid banality and idiocy.  I'll be beating this dead horse many more times to come.  For now, I think I'll leave things here for the night.