TIA Is Wrong on Card. Ottaviani
Objections | Comments | Questions | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
You Are Spreading False Information about him
In this link TIA article titled "Cardinal Ottaviani gives up and accepts Progressivism," you state that "at the end of Vatican Council II, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani gave up his ideals and aligned himself with Paul VI and the progressivist current." You further state that "he affirmed that thenceforth he would defend the new principles of Vatican II."
Why do you keep such information on your website without informing your readers at the end of the article that it was proven false many years ago, and that, in fact, Cardinal Ottaviani never gave up his ideals and accepted the disaster that was Vatican II?
Here is the truth as revealed on September 25, 2004 by another website:
This case provides a good example why the internet is a dangerous source when people don't have the knowledge to analyze the information they receive. The New Order's cover story that Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani changed his mind about his document, authored in conjunction with Antonio Cardinal Bacci and several Roman theologians, condemning the New Order as unCatholic and even invalid, has long ago been shown to be an "urban myth."
The proponents of the New Order were devastated to have the Church's highest theological authority and a President of the Vatican II Council publicly question the validity of the so-called "New Mass" and to have had Pope Paul VI admit the validity of Cardinal Ottaviani's charge by recalling the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969, just after it was issued.
In an effort to counter the Cardinal's charges of unCatholicity and even invalidity, which stand true to this day, the New Order cooked up a phony "cover story" that the Cardinal had "retracted" his statement. This story interestingly parallels the deceit that the English bishops had used with St. Joan of Arc, claiming that she had retracted her statements. Of course, both stories are lies.
A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal's signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni.
Now it has come to light that this Agustoni was a member of the Consilium which that fabricated the "New Mass" and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary.
So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal's secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal's public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony "retraction," which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never "retracted," in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.
The moral of this story is that the New Order will resort even to fraud and lies to relieve itself of the embarrassment of having its New Order service called what it putatively is - invalid. One can only think of the mountains of lies that New Order bishops have told to conceal the gross immoralities going on in their dioceses, which are starting to topple those bishops, ten of whom have been indicated or resigned, two of whose dioceses have now come under court supervision.
Your piece is confusing apples and oranges. The text you reproduced deals with the New Mass, not with Vatican II or the Universal Republic, the topics discussed in the documents we posted (here & here). Thus, your argument, even if it were sound, would not apply to the topics we addressed.
Notwithstanding, it does not seem very sound. Let us make a quick comparison of the value of the arguments.
To substantiate the affirmation that he accepted Vatican II, we posted a photocopy of the original chronicle of the Council by Henri Fesquet, a serious journalist of the French newspaper Le Monde. He translated the actual words of Card. Ottaviani in an interview published by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.
To substantiate that Ottaviani accepted the United Nations in a solemn speech to the Council and asked for its approval of the Universal Republic, we posted a photocopy of another prestigious chronicle of the Council, this one by Fr. Giovanni Caprile, one of the directors of La Civiltà Cattolica, the principal magazine of the Jesuits.
However, “to substantiate” your objection, you quote an anonymous article from an unidentified website, whose author does not present any evidence, but bases himself only on hearsay and subjective speculations. Further, the supposed forgery of Ottaviani’s signature is so disputable that the defender himself considers it more prudent not to discard that the Cardinal may have retracted when he writes: “In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never 'retracted,' in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.”
We thank you for sending your baseless objection because it confirms the veracity of what we posted and gives those documents new momentum.
TIA Correspondence desk
Posted November 1, 2011
Related Topics of Interest
Gives Up and Accepts Progressivism
Card. Ottaviani Praises
the UN and a Universal Republic
Card. Siri Saying the New Mass
Card. Siri pledging allegiance
to the Conciliar Popes
Arch. Lefebvre's Proposal to Merge with Rome
Arch. Lefebvre: 'I Accept
Vatican II in the Light of Tradition'
Bishop Fellay Accepted 95% of
Card. Hoyos and the SSPX
Acceptance of Vatican II
Fellay to Guimaraes: Your
Critique Is a Delirium
Bishop Rifan's Betrayal
Related Works of Interest
Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved