Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[scylla]

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

I don’t know about that, there is a big difference here between the common modern view of niceness above truth. I know sometimes many can be rough around the edges, but Jesus also was. He put truth first all through the gospels.
You will find more people here interested in truth and right reason than any other “Christian forum” on the net. Sorry if anyone offended you and you are indeed welcome.

Now would you like to talk about the Mass?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[John_Higgins]

Abbott,

Yes, welcome.

Some here like to parade out their opinoins as if they were Truth (always a capital T).

Your observation asking if this were an SSPX site was valid.

Hang around the whole site. There are actual level headed people around here. Honest.

John

 

[AJV]

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.

I find the comparsions sometimes a bit misleading. I wrote on that here (post 59-61)

As for the second link it is full of half statements and bland “proofs”. I will go through the whole list at the end of the week, but see for example the first two articles itself.

All ref. are to the 1975 GIRM.

1. Offertory = oblation of the victim

As I said before, it was judged improper to offer the Victim before the Consexcration

1.  Double consecration = immolation of victim

2.  Eucharistic prayer = canon of the New Mass; it is primarily a prayer of thanksgiving for the gifts received; it is in this context that the consecration is performed

Uh huh. Let see.

1. The chief elements making up the eucharistic prayer are these…Institution narrative and consecration: in the words and actions of Christ, that sacrifice is celebrated which he himself instituted at the Last Supper, when, under the appearances of bread and wine, he offered his body and blood, gave them to his apostles to eat and drink, then commanded that they carry on this mystery.

Sounds like double consecration to me.

1. Communion = consummation of victim

Yes, God forbid that we should say anything like the faithful commune the Body and Blood like IG 48 “through communion they receive the Lord’s Body and Blood in the same way the apostles received them from Christ’s own hands.”. We must use precise terminology to say that it is a Victim consumed.

But I look around and I see that IG 55 says “that the Victim to be received in communion be the source of salvation for those who will partake.”

a) The Victim is sufficiently symbolized under one species
a) Both eating and drinking must take place;

Must? I see no evidence for that

b) Only the priest consumes the main Host
b) Brotherly sharing: the main Host must be large enough to give some to the faithful;

An implied meaning. It is in order to demonstrate by means of the signs of the rite itself the unity in one Victim.

Dual presence:

W As Priest – in the person of His minister
W As Victim – in the Eucharistic species

Spiritual presence: He is given to the faithful in His Word and His Body and these presences are placed on the same level.

This dual presence idea is a bit mistaken. See Gihr’s “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” where he does mention the presence of the Lord in the Liturgy of the Word, etc. The Eucharistic presence is differentiated by the words "substantially and permanently " because elsewhere Christ is not present permanently or substantially as is the case with the Sacrament

 

[pnewton]

I am new here. Is this an SSPX site? If so, I’m in the wrong place

Your Abbott

Heck no, but I think this does turn into a fishing ground that some SSPX use for new converts. The vast majority, though, are faithful Catholics, just like the Church.

I find the use of Martin Luther in Catholic discussion parallels the use of Hitler in political discussions. Sooner or later, one side will use the name as a begging the question argument. I am glad to see this practice predates the internet and is even employed by Archbishops.

 

[PapaBennySix]

Heck no, but I think this does turn into a fishing ground that some SSPX use for new converts. The vast majority, though, are faithful Catholics, just like the Church.

I find the use of Martin Luther in Catholic discussion parallels the use of Hitler in political discussions. Sooner or later, one side will use the name as a begging the question argument. I am glad to see this practice predates the internet and is even employed by Archbishops.

The position of the SSPX is not faithful Catholicism?? And how can a lay person be labeled a SSPX. This is the Traditional Catholicism forum yes?? You can call us SSPX only folks disobedient for not going along with the changes after Vatican II, but to call us NOT faithful Catholics…hmmm

Do I need to convert you to Catholicism? Some Cardinals want to lift the excommunication of Luther, and this is WHY we have some problems in the Church that need addressing. How can we even suggest such a thing as this…

The Archbishop proposed we just stay Catholics as we always have been…and no one wanted to listen to him. He did not want to break from the Pope, the Pope seemed to want to break with Tradition, and gave him no successor for Tradition. That’s another thread.

Gotta run.

 

[pnewton]

The position of the SSPX is not faithful Catholicism??

no

And how can a lay person be labeled a SSPX.

They can only be labeled as such but are technically not. Just like there really can not be an SSPX thread or website.

This is the Traditional Catholicism forum yes??

yes. It is traditional Catholicism and that is what I post on. It is not a Traditional Catholic club.

Do I need to convert you to Catholicism?

I already am, thank you very much. This has not stopped some SSPX supporters from attempting to convert me and others into unfaithfulness against my Church.

I posted my earlier post because Your Abbot had concerns that this was an SSPX site. I would encourage him and anyone else to do a search on “SSPX” in the Ask an Apologist thread titles. There will be no doubt as to the position of this site.

 

[GerardP]

This has not stopped some SSPX supporters from attempting to convert me and others into unfaithfulness against my Church.

Hah! That’s a laugh. “Converting” someone to the SSPX is the last thing anyone is trying to do. Like the SSPX itself, I want the need for the SSPX to go away.

The only thing that supporters of the SSPX do on this forum is try to correct the ridiculous errors, half truths about the SSPX and the crisis in the Church and while we’re at it, we wind up correcting some of the most badly catechized and Protestantized Catholics who hold to the most unCatholic of ideas about the Catholic Church. So confused are they by modernist propaganda and misdirection from prelates, they are cut off from their roots and rail against their own patrimony.

“What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong. We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
If you were right then, we are right now.”

 

[SFD]

Newton:

This has not stopped some SSPX supporters from attempting to convert me and others into unfaithfulness against my Church.

Newton,

You consistently make this claim…why? I think most here are making arguments on specific issues…not “fishing” for converts.

You can’t see past the political nature of the issues discussed here. This charge is just a way to avoid discussing them…that is, with any semblance of intellectual honesty.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Hah! That’s a laugh. “Converting” someone to the SSPX is the last thing anyone is trying to do. Like the SSPX itself, I want the need for the SSPX to go away.

I hope you are right. I pray I am wrong. I can’t deny the possiblity I have misunderstood the intent of some.

 

[SemperFidelis]

no

There are many Saints that would disagree with you…

 

[pnewton]

There are many Saints that would disagree with you…

How many saints have commented positively on the SSPX?

 

[latinmasslover]

How many saints have commented positively on the SSPX?

What beliefs of the SSPX are not Catholic?

 

[PapaBennySix]

How many saints have commented positively on the SSPX?

Every single one of them. The Society simply does exactly what was always done, form priests according to the official, dogmatic, truths of Catholicism. Priests now are no longer formed in the same manner, meaning, Thomastic theology has been thrown out.

There are many priests that tell the faithful that Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ, but yet I read something entirely different before Vatican II. When I first came to the Novus Ordo, the priest told my family that I was choosing another flavor of Christianity. Blah. We must be firm, today’s priests no longer warn the faithful of the dangers of mortal sin from the pulpit…are they scared of man? The SSPX remains firm, that is all. And you seperate them from the One True Church? Can the Pope tell them that they are wrong for their beliefs? No Pope can do this.

Have a read:

Naturally, the truth that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church has been supported by all the saints from every age. Following are several examples:

St. Irenaeus (130-202), Bishop and Martyr: “The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons.”
St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”

St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop: “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.”

St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226): “All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!”

St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), the Angelic Doctor: There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church."

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716): “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes.”

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “Outside the Church there is no salvation…therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins”…For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: “All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church … How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!”

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like ERRORS, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science." (The dates for the two Popes are the years they reigned as Sovereign Pontiffs.)

 

[pnewton]

Every single one of them.

Not one quote your gave mentions the SSPX. Lest everyone jump in and continue begging the question or anyone else put their spin on what I said while ignoring what I really said, I asked about comments by the Saints on the SSPX.

I said intitially that I do not believe the SSPX to be faithfully Catholic. By that, I mean faithful to the Catholic Church, not Catholic doctrine. The head of the Catholic Church is currently Pope Benedict XVI. Before him, the head was Pope John Paul II. It is my belief that they are in schism, as defined by the latter. I have separated no one from the Catholic Church. I believe that it would have been the late John Paul II who stated that Levebvre separated himself.

I will pass on responding to your strawman as being totally off the topic and irrelevant.

 

[bpbasilphx]

And is Lefebrve talking about Luther’s German Mass (which was in German) or his Forumula Missae (which was in Latin)?

Luther himself preferred to keep things in Latin.

His Formula Missae was also the first Eucharistic rite that BY RUBRIC called for the elevation of BOTH the Host and Chalice. (The Chalice had been elevated by custom, but not by rubric until then in the Catholic mass.)

 

[AJV]

And is Lefebrve talking about Luther’s German Mass (which was in German) or his Forumula Missae (which was in Latin)?

Luther himself preferred to keep things in Latin.

His Formula Missae was also the first Eucharistic rite that BY RUBRIC called for the elevation of BOTH the Host and Chalice. (The Chalice had been elevated by custom, but not by rubric until then in the Catholic mass.)

bpbasilphx, I humbly disagree unless perhaps you were referring to a particular locality or manner? I agree that it was not done everywhere by rurbic, but I don’t think his was the first. For example, in a 15th century missal of York quoted by Drury “Hic elevet calicem usque ad caput, dicens: Haec quotiescunque…”

 

[Your_Abbott]

Some Cardinals want to lift the excommunication of Luther,

.

Can you source those cardinals for me? This is news to me

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

It is not a Traditional Catholic club.
.

It’s not? Some people think it is, and want to chase others who are tramping on their turf. They seem to exhibit a lack of charity.

Your Abbott

 

[SemperFidelis]

How many saints have commented positively on the SSPX?

These quotes, by various Saints, Popes, and theologians all apply to the current situation that the SSPX finds itself in: not sedevacantist, but in an irregular situation where there is disagreement with the Holy See:
St. Thomas Aquinas:

There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’.

St. Robert Bellarmine:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all. who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.

St. Robert Bellarmine:

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.

St. Peter Canisius:

It behooves us unanimously to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether defined or simply retained by the customary practice of the Church.

St. Peter Damian:

It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church…Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set.

Pope St. Stephen:

Do not innovate anything. Rest content with Tradition.

Pope St. Pius X:

Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor innovators, they are the traditionalists.

St. Vincent of Lerins:

What shall a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying.

St. Athanasius:

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Dom Prosper Gueranger:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to defend itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the treasure of Revelation, there are certain points that every Christian necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend.

Cardinal Juan de Torquemada:

By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the Divine or natural law. By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because the body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way the Pope could, without doubt, fall into schism. Especially is this true with regard to the Divine liturgy as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed.

Fr. Francisco Suarez:

Any pope who wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed.

Second Council of Nicea:

If anyone rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, let him be anathema.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildrebrand:

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.

 

[stmaria]

bpbasilphx, I humbly disagree unless perhaps you were referring to a particular locality or manner? I agree that it was not done everywhere by rurbic, but I don’t think his was the first. For example, in a 15th century missal of York quoted by Drury “Hic elevet calicem usque ad caput, dicens: Haec quotiescunque…”

In Dom Prosper Gueranger’s newadvent.org/cathen/07058a.htm book * Explanation of the Holy Mass which was published somewhere around 1841 he says this about the elevation of the host. “ Rising from his own act of adoration, the priest uplifts the host, raising It above his head, to show It to the faithful so that they too may adore. Formerly the host was not elevated at this part of the Mass, but only just before the commencing of the Pater*. In the eleventh century, Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers, having dared to deny the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, this showing of the Sacred Host to the people, in the Mass immediately after Consecration , was introduced to excite them to adoration.”