Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter PapaBennySix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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…"

Good point. Perhaps the source I read this in was referring to the actual local Missale Romanum as it existed at Luther’s time?
 
Your_Abbott said:
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
Click to expand...
Mr. Your Abbott:

Why don’t you just make your arguments and forget about the “lack of charity” you seem to see everywhere. No one has treated you with a lack of charity here, as far as I can see. What do you think a charitable person does? … is he only to agree with you?

SFD
 
SemperFidelis said:
:
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, SSPX is a schismatic sect outside the Roman Catholic Church. Its bishops were consecrated to form a hierarchy outside RCC. They have no authority, and refuse to return.

Their bishops have been excommunicated. The latin Mass was returned as a special favor to them by Benedict XVI, and they threw it back at him, thinking they could get more.

They are not getting anymore. They showed to see him in bad faith, and he will reward they bad faith by 'no more soup for you"!

Your Abbott
 
Your_Abbott said:
The latin Mass was returned as a special favor to them by Benedict XVI, and they threw it back at him, thinking they could get more.

They are not getting anymore. They showed to see him in bad faith, and he will reward they bad faith by 'no more soup for you"!

Your Abbott
Click to expand...
I think the Pope may be a better Christian than that!

I would view the T. Latin Mass not exclusively as a concession to the SSPX but rather as a favour to whole Church - it is after all our patrimony. I don’t see why the SSPX has to have rights to the term.

And I doubt the Latin Mass is the only issue with the SSPX. I don’t think things can be simplified to the level of “they wanted to get more”

Just my two cents.Or three. Or four…
 
Your_Abbott said:
Correct me if I am wrong, SSPX is a schismatic sect outside the Roman Catholic Church. Its bishops were consecrated to form a hierarchy outside RCC. They have no authority, and refuse to return.

Their bishops have been excommunicated. The latin Mass was returned as a special favor to them by Benedict XVI, and they threw it back at him, thinking they could get more.

They are not getting anymore. They showed to see him in bad faith, and he will reward they bad faith by 'no more soup for you"!

Your Abbott
Click to expand...
If you are correct, then SSPX is in partial communion with the Church and there adherents are not to be looked at as heretics, apostates, or schismatics. That’s what you pal mgrfin might say.

SFD
 
SFD said:
Mr. Your Abbott:

Why don’t you just make your arguments and forget about the “lack of charity” you seem to see everywhere. No one has treated you with a lack of charity here, as far as I can see. What do you think a charitable person does? … is he only to agree with you?

SFD
Click to expand...
You wouldn’t know charity if St. Paul dedicated 1Cor 13 to you…

Your Abbott
 
SFD said:
If you are correct, then SSPX is in partial communion with the Church and there adherents are not to be looked at as heretics, apostates, or schismatics. That’s what you pal mgrfin might say.

SFD
Click to expand...
If you are excommunicated you are not in communion with the Church.

what’s pal mgrfin?
 
Your_Abbott said:
Correct me if I am wrong, SSPX is a schismatic sect outside the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Nowhere does Ecclesia Dei state that the SSPX is in schism, only that the bishops have performed schismatic acts (totally different than being in actual schism). Only the four ordained bishops, along with Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer were excommunicated. The validity and justness of the excommunications can easily be questioned. If Canon 1323 N. 4 was ever going to apply to anyone, I think it would apply to those involved in the consecrations. Claiming they are outside the Church is completely ludicrous however, even if you believe the bishops are in schism (the priests and the laity that attend SSPX Churches can’t be). Pope Benedict XVI speaks of “internal reconciliation” in Summorum Pontificum:
Pope Benedict XVI:
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.
Click to expand...
Stating they are outside the Church is ridiculous. If they were outside the Church, then the Church would surely be getting the word out consistently and in a clear manner that folks could not go to SSPX Masses. If they were really outside the Church, the souls of those who attend would be in danger. The fact that this hasn’t happened is proof that the SSPX is not outside the Church. Pope Benedict XVI speaks clearly of an internal reconciliation regarding the SSPX.
Its bishops were consecrated to form a hierarchy outside RCC.
Click to expand...
Not at all true. Four bishops does not a hierarchy make. The SSPX has never intended and does not intend today to create a parallel Church. Their mission from the start, which continues today, is to work within the Church for the reestablishment of Tradition.
and refuse to return.
Click to expand...
The SSPX most definitely wants to return and get out of their irregular situation. However, they justly required that two things happen first. 1) that all priests be allowed the authority to offer the TLM freely, and that the Church declare the TLM was never abrogated, and that as such it is impossible for the Church to abrogate or deny a priest the right to offer a Mass that has been handed down by Tradition through the centuries. This is completely legitimate, as even a pope doesn’t have the authority to abrogate something such as the TLM. I’ll go into the second thing a bit further down.
Their bishops have been excommunicated. The latin Mass was returned as a special favor to them by Benedict XVI,
Click to expand...
Reading Summorum Pontificum would clearly lead one to the conclusion that the above statement is not at all true. The pope has clearly stated his intentions for issuing SP, and it is more than what you claim.
and they threw it back at him, thinking they could get more.
Click to expand...
They didn’t “throw” anything. They praised the Holy Father for the Motu Propio. However, they stated from the get-go after 1988 (and logically so) that the unjust excommunications must be overturned and declared null and void. This has yet to happen. Hopefullly the Holy Father is working on it. Things don’t change overnight in Rome or the rest of the Catholic world, Novus Ordo aside.
and he will reward they bad faith by 'no more soup for you"!
Click to expand...
Well, at least your a Seinfeld fan…that’s good.
 
latinmasslover said:
Or they could actually research the *facts *of the situation rather than basing truth on opinion and propaganda.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That would probably be in the best interest of everybody. The situation is far more complicated than the CAF apologists make it out to be. [sarcasm]I guess Canon 1323 N. 4 is pointless, because it clearly couldn’t apply to anyone.[/sarcasm] 🤷
 
SemperFidelis said:
So, this is your reponse to all those quotes I posted?
Click to expand...
Okay, then I will point out that when I see the words “apply” or “application” in regards to the Bible or some other document, then we into the realm of personal opinion, in this case about what the saints said, and away from what they actually say.

They do not mention SSPX period. That was the only claim I initially made.
 
pnewton said:
Okay, then I will point out that when I see the words “apply” or “application” in regards to the Bible or some other document, then we into the realm of personal opinion, in this case about what the saints said, and away from what they actually say.
Click to expand...
It’s not personal opinion. Tradition, unlike the Bible, is clear and concise for a reason. That is so that if a crisis arises, there can be an easy to find, objective standard to follow. Tradition is that objective standard. It’s not complicated. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what Pius XI said on ecumenism and then see that the last few popes have thrown those teachings out the window. That is because Tradition is a clear, objective standard. Other than that, if you have a problem with the quotes I posted, take it up with the several Doctors of the Church, Popes, and theologians that said those things.
They do not mention SSPX period.
Click to expand...
That’s because the SSPX didn’t exist at the time. The SPPX however, is only following the wisdom of those that I quoted. A blind man could easily draw the correlation.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Tradition, unlike the Bible, is clear and concise for a reason. That is so that if a crisis arises, there can be an easy to find, objective standard to follow. Tradition is that objective standard. It’s not complicated.
Click to expand...
Then why didn’t Lefebvre agree with John Paul II? Tradition is clear? Why do some demand that Tradition mandates a sedevacatist position?

For that matter, why has infallibility only been defined in a narrow range of papal statements and Church council statements and not in writing of the Saints?

If everything was so clear as to not allow for personal opinion, the SSPX would not exist.
 
Hey everyone.

I’m a Catholic that was raised with the NO mass, but recently became interested in the TLM because my fiance is a Traditional Catholic and attends an SSPX chapel. Since meeting her, I’ve done a lot of research on SSPX and what its position is within the Church. After reading through this thread, I thought I’d share with some of you some the things I’ve found, especially because there seems to be some ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge; not stupidity) on this thread.

First, despite what the apologists on this forum say, the most recent positions taken by the Church hierarchy is that SSPX is not, nor has it been, in a formal state schism.
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.
Click to expand...
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxnis.pdf

Second, there has been quite a bit of dialogue between Rome and the leaders of the SSPX in the last few years and to characterize that dialogue as anything except amicable and well-intentioned would be wholly to distort it (as some have). See cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39281 In other words, whether someone likes what the SSPX has done or not, we are all on the same team and working for the same ultimate goal. Just like the leaders of the SSPX and the hierarchy of the Church, we can disagree about some things without letting it become a personal fight that we need to “win.”
 
GodIsSalvation said:
See cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39281 In other words, whether someone likes what the SSPX has done or not, we are all on the same team and working for the same ultimate goal. Just like the leaders of the SSPX and the hierarchy of the Church, we can disagree about some things without letting it become a personal fight that we need to “win.”
Click to expand...
I remember when the meeting took place thinking that this is one thing we can all agree on. The rift needs to be healed.
 
GodIsSalvation said:
First, despite what the apologists on this forum say, the most recent positions taken by the Church hierarchy is that SSPX is not, nor has it been, in a formal state schism.

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxnis.pdf
Click to expand...
I agree that it needs to be resolved, but the official legal position of the Church is that they are a schismatic movement. The things that members of the Ecclesia Dei Commission say to private individuals do not change the lawful and authoritative position of the Church.
 
Sure,

I’m wondering how you come to this conclusion. I agree that the Motu Proprio Ecclessia Dei, delcared the act of Mons. Lefebvre to be a schismatic act, but if you look at the document, that appears to be a rash conclusion.

[
Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.
Click to expand...
](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html)
But I don’t think anybody today would assert, at least not reasonably, that Mons. Lefebvre or the SSPX doesn’t recognize the Roman primacy. Just go to the SSPX website and look in the left column if you don’t believe me.

Also, if we can’t trust what the head of Ecclesia Dei says about the matter, who can we trust? I am not trying to be difficult, but if we assume Cardinal Hoyos was speaking personally and without any authority, as it seems you’re insinuating, it begs several questions. Is he a rogue Cardinal? Should Pope Benedict discipline him for making heretical statements? I’m sure this isn’t what you meant, so could you please clarify?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top