Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter PapaBennySix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve found good comparisons between Cranmer’s mass being very much like the Novus Ordo and they are compared beside the Traditional Latin Mass. -Luther’s Mass can be argued to be like Cranmers in the sense that they are recreating the Lords Supper event instead of Calvary. We don’t go to mass to sit around the table, we go there to offer a Sacrifice to God, His own Son, the Lamb.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comparison.htm

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Cranmer: Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) was the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury who destroyed the Catholic faith in England through liturgical change according to his Protestant views. He introduced two main new liturgical books: the 1549 service that was a compromise between the Catholic rite before and a fully-blown Protestant service, and the 1552 service that truly embodied his Protestant beliefs. He was burnt at the stake during the reign of Queen Mary of Tudor, convicted of heresy (a capital crime at that time).

The MAIN theme and the dangerous part about the Novus Ordo Missae that tends to side with what Luther says about the mass, is that the Mass is more of a community gathering than a reenactment of Calvary.

Also you have communion under both species, which is totally not necessary, as everything, body, blood, soul and divinity is contained in Eucharist.
 
stmaria said:
This article written by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1975 is , in my opinion, more proof of why he believed that he had to consecrate the bishops. This is more proof of what his mindset was and why he believed the Church was in “grave danger” as sited in Canon law.
And let us not forget that none of the changes that the Archbishop speaks about in his article are in the Constitution on the Liturgy which he voted for**. These were all innovations done outside of the Constitution. Archbishop Lefebvre was in fact open to changes in the mass.
*A Bishop Speaks *by Archbishop Lefebvre
“Some reform and renewal was needed…The first part of the Mass, intended for the instruction of the Faithful and as a means of expressing their faith, clearly stood in need of a means of achieving these ends more plainly and, in some way, more intelligibly. In my humble opinion, two of the reforms proposed for this purpose appeared useful: first the rites of this first part and some vernacular translations.
Let the priest draw near the faithful, communicate with them, pray and sing with them, stand at the lectern to give the readings from the Epistle and Gospel their tongue, sing the credo with the people in the traditional divine melodies. All these are happy reforms restoring to this part of the Mass its true purpose.”

One only need to read the first paragraph of the Constitution, which was written by a group of theologians under the direction of Father Bugnini, to see that in their eyes the mass needed reform to " promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church" vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Ecumenism was at the heart of the changes. However the Mass described in the Constitution would not go far enough to “promote union among all who believe in Christ” so the very men that wrote the Constitution then ignored it when they formed the Consilium to implement it. This I believe is what Archbishop Lefebvre is speaking of in his article on Luther’s Mass.
Click to expand...
Luther was excommunicated. Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.

Don’t we have anything else to compare the Sacrifice of the Mass with? No, I think the Mass, the NO, is perfect the way it is.

Your Abbott
 
PapaBennySix said:
Many traditionalists totally resist the Novus Ordo Mass because of its resemblance to Luther’s proposals, which were all condemned absolutely by Pope St. Pius V. So in the 1960’s, when his mass shows up in the form of a project of Paul VI, the Novus Ordo Missae, those who were aware of the similarity resisted. Most did not resist, many were confused…um Vatican II did not mandate this…

I’m not sure how long it will take for the Archbishop’s works to get criticized here on CAF, but this is an excellent article for those who would like to know a bit about why Luther should NOT be considered anything less than a Heretic, and the Archbishop, while perhaps disobedient, was absolutely CATHOLIC in his faith. You be the judge.

Ave Maria.

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

"We must, therefore, preserve this Liturgy, this Sacrifice. Our churches were built for this Mass and for no other: for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and not for a supper, a meal, a memorial or a Communion. Our ancestors built magnificent cathedrals and churches, not for a meal or a simple memorial, but for the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ which continues upon our altars. " -Archbishop Lefebrve,1975
Click to expand...
I am new here. Is this an SSPX site? If so, I’m in the wrong place

Your Abbott
 
Your_Abbott said:
Luther was excommunicated. Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Luther was a heretic. Archbishop LeFebvre was not. And LeFebvre’s excommunication was invalid. Luther’s was not.

Your comparison is like saying, “Christ was crucified and the two thieves next to him were crucified”
Don’t we have anything else to compare the Sacrifice of the Mass with? No, I think the Mass, the NO, is perfect the way it is.
Your Abbott
Click to expand...
The current Pope disagrees:
"But perhaps what I have to say will be of use. J.A. Jungman, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, offered his definition of the liturgy of his time, as it was intended in the West, and he represented it in terms of historical research. He described it as “liturgy which is the fruit of development”.
Click to expand...
This is probably in contrast with the Eastern notion which does not see liturgy as developing or growing in history but as the reflection of eternal liturgy whose light, through the sacred celebration, illumines our changing times with its unchanging beauty and greatness. Both conceptions are legitimate and by definition they are not irreconcilable.
Click to expand...
What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.
Click to expand...
We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.–Cardinal Ratzinger from the preface to Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Liturgy
Click to expand...
 
GerardP said:
Luther was a heretic. Archbishop LeFebvre was not. And LeFebvre’s excommunication was invalid. Luther’s was not.

Your comparison is like saying, “Christ was crucified and the two thieves next to him were crucified”

The current Pope disagrees:
Click to expand...
Oh, okay, if you say so. I didn’t hear that his excommunication was called back.

To me, when you are outside the Body of Christ, you are outside the Body of Christ, whether your name is Martin Luther, or bishop Lefebrve.

Can you quote some document of the Vatican that says it was all a mistake about the bishop? Just asking.

While youre at it, could you quote to me where the current pope disagrees?

Not Cardinal Ratzinger, but the current pope “qua pope”, who has the power to change it instantaneously.

Your Abbott
 
bear06 said:
No it’s not but there are a few people here who attend. Many do not.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t many mean all here? 🙂

How can a few people attend…and all not attend? I guess that is for future theologians to explain.

SFD
 
SFD said:
Doesn’t many mean all here? 🙂

How can a few people attend…and all not attend? I guess that is for future theologians to explain.

SFD
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. You are talking over my head.

Are you making fun of me cause I am new here?

Your Abbott
 
"We must, therefore, preserve this Liturgy, this Sacrifice. Our churches were built for this Mass and for no other: for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and not for a supper, a meal, a memorial or a Communion. Our ancestors built magnificent cathedrals and churches, not for a meal or a simple memorial, but for the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ which continues upon our altars. " -Archbishop Lefebrve,1975
Click to expand...
I must disagree with the good Archbishop; the Mass is both a Sacrifice and all of these other things.

They needn’t exclude each other.
 
Your_Abbott said:
Oh, okay, if you say so. I didn’t hear that his excommunication was called back.
Click to expand...
It may take a while, just like St. Joan of Arc’s.
To me, when you are outside the Body of Christ, you are outside the Body of Christ, whether your name is Martin Luther, or bishop Lefebrve.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. I’m sure that to an average 1st century Jew, Jesus was no better or worse than either of the theives beside him.
Can you quote some document of the Vatican that says it was all a mistake about the bishop? Just asking.
Click to expand...
Nope. I can’t quote one that says 2+2=4 either. Does that make it false?
While youre at it, could you quote to me where the current pope disagrees?
Click to expand...
Not Cardinal Ratzinger, but the current pope “qua pope”, who has the power to change it instantaneously.
Click to expand...
No. Can you find me a quote where he has recanted his statements as Cardinal Ratzinger?
 
SFD said:
It’s very basic…you really don’t get it? …and you call yourself “Your Abbott”? Maybe it’s that extra “t”.

SFD
Click to expand...
I never said that “Abbott” referred to “Abbot”. The name “Abbot” was taken.

Your Abbott
 
Welcome to the forums Your Abbott, sometimes it gets pretty interesting, forgive us if we offend.

I see some pretty good points to consider, regarding the NO Mass. Discipline can change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. There is nothing wrong with discussing the problems with the new Mass, or if there are not problems, defending it.

God Bless
Scylla
 
scylla said:
Welcome to the forums Your Abbott, sometimes it gets pretty interesting, forgive us if we offend.

I see some pretty good points to consider, regarding the NO Mass. Discipline can change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. There is nothing wrong with discussing the problems with the new Mass, or if there are not problems, defending it.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
Well, it seems not to be a very Christian place. I’ve already been told that my views are not welcomed here, and that I should go to another place.

Maybe I won’t come back.

Your Abbott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top