Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter PapaBennySix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
SemperFidelis:
The Pope cannot be in error when speaking ex-cathedra, on faith and morals, when intending to define. That is why Tradition and the Pope are one. He defines Tradition. That is what he does defining the Assumption, Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception. That is what he is doing: defining Tradition. ****He cannot be in error about what the Apostles taught. **** “At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it.”

Your Abbott
 
SemperFidelis said:
We know the Church teachings on ecumenism by reading various Papal Encyclicals, and hence we can know that Pope John Paul II contradicted those teachings. Clear and simple, no?
Click to expand...
No! That’s a fallacy. Pope John Paul II was infallible in his teachings in Vatican 2. He was incapable of error. You are so afraid of ecumenism, you would accuse the Vicar of Christ on earth of heresy. And you claim you are not a SV? Nonsense. That is what you are.

Your Abbott
 
Your Abbott,

Just another quick question for you. What is your opinion about Pope Benedict IX, who had illegitmate children during his ponticificate and did some other quite unsavory things. Or what what about Pope Alexander VI and the other child popes? If the Pope really is perfect in every way as you seem to suggest, then how can you possibly explain these instances, and others like them, with a straight face?
 
GodIsSalvation said:
Your Abbott,

Just another quick question for you. What is your opinion about Pope Benedict IX, who had illegitmate children during his ponticificate and did some other quite unsavory things. Or what what about Pope Alexander VI and the other child popes? If the Pope really is perfect in every way as you seem to suggest, then how can you possibly explain these instances, and others like them, with a straight face?
Click to expand...
I never said that a Pope’s personal life was indicative of anything. You’re putting words into my mouth. Sin is sin, and we are all capable of it. Look to Peter!
 
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...
Sorry they both are heretics.
 
Your_Abbott said:
Doesn’t change a thing. “At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it.” Still.
Click to expand...
Do you actually have sources for such nonsense, or are you just ranting?
Gee, what made me think that you were going to quote what Vatican 2 taught? You remember Vatican 2? What the Church convoke during the '60s.
Click to expand...
Considering Vatican II didn’t speak on such a topic as the pope and Tradition, why would I quote it? You do realize right, that there were 20 Ecumenical Councils that took place before Vatican II, Councils that actually defined matters of Faith? Vatican II was completely valid, but why would I quote Vatican II when it doesn’t even touch on the subject at hand?
 
Your_Abbott said:
No! That’s a fallacy. Pope John Paul II was infallible in his teachings in Vatican 2. He was incapable of error.
Click to expand...
Many popes have erred and have been material heretics. Pope Adrian VI says so himself:
Pope Adrian VI:
If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t mean that the pope is not infallible, or that because of his heresy he ceases to be the pope, but he can err in certain circumstances. Several popes have made such doctrinal errors: John XXII, Honorius I, Boniface IV, Liberius I, and Vigilius I.
You are so afraid of ecumenism, you would accuse the Vicar of Christ on earth of heresy.
Click to expand...
Well, someone has gotta be wrong here. There are many papal encyclicals that address ecumenism written by popes such as Gregory XVI, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, etc. Then we have Pope John Paul II doing what these popes clearly condemned. We have the objective standard of Tradition telling us one thing, and we have a pope who does something else. They can’t both be right. So who’s wrong here?
And you claim you are not a SV? Nonsense.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no knowledge of sedevacantism. If you think I am one, then you are a moron. Several times I have told you I am not a sedevacantist and that I think the whole theory is in error. I refuse to discuss this topic any further with the likes of you until you understand a little more about sedevacantism. If you want to understand my thoughts on such a position, read this article, otherwise keep your condescending tone and accusations to yourself:

debugmybrain.blogspot.com/2006/01/sedevacantism-exposed.html
 
The Popes can teach infallibly, however not every little thing they can do is inerrant. I know people will yell at me here, however sorry for you all, Vatican II is official and infallible. We still have TLM, just not as much. Stop complaining, the Church hasn’t changed you have, you once followed it, then you got mad and left. I agree I prefer the TLM, however there is no reason to schism over that.
 
Derbingo said:
I don’t think so. They may have been very colorful, but heretics they weren’t. Better check out your definition of heresy.
Click to expand...
her·e·sy /ˈhɛrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[her-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sies.
  1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
  2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
  3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
  4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
    [Origin: 1175–1225; ME heresie < OF eresie < L haeresis school of thought, sect < Gk haíresis, lit., act of choosing, deriv. of haireǐn to choose]
Click to expand...
—Synonyms 4. dissent, iconoclasm, dissension. Source
Click to expand...
Sorry, but yes they were:

Martin Luther

Teachings directly contradicted the Catholic Church’s.

Archbishop Lefebrve

Teachings contradicted the Catholic Church’s

Sorry but I don’t see how that is wrong, can you explain to me.
 
Your_Abbott said:
Gee, what made me think that you were going to quote what Vatican 2 taught?
Click to expand...
Do you want me to quote you the parts of Vatican II where it talks about Latin being retained in both the seminaries and the Mass, or do you not agree with that? I’ve seen you bash on seminaries requiring Latin for seminarians in other threads. So, who’s on board with Vatican II now?
 
holdencaulfield said:
Vatican II is official and infallible.
Click to expand...
Sorry. You are wrong. John XXIII, Paul VI and then-Cardinal Ratzinger have all stated that Vatican II did not proclaim any infallible definitions.
We still have TLM, just not as much.
Click to expand...
And it’s a disgrace.
Stop complaining, the Church hasn’t changed you have, you once followed it, then you got mad and left.
Click to expand...
The Church hasn’t changed. The Churchmen have changed the policies of the Church organization. And that was a bad thing to do. After that they started persecuting good men who continued to practice the faith legitimately.
I agree I prefer the TLM, however there is no reason to schism over that.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t schism. The problem is major prelates lying about schism.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Do you want me to quote you the parts of Vatican II where it talks about Latin being retained in both the seminaries and the Mass, or do you not agree with that? I’ve seen you bash on seminaries requiring Latin for seminarians in other threads. So, who’s on board with Vatican II now?
Click to expand...
You, have me mixed up with someone else then. I think it’s a great idea for seminaries requiring Latin. I think that every, parish should have at least one TLM service. So perhaps people have simply stopped following Vatican II. Could you clear this up for me? I was under this impression about SSPX:

-They are heretics
-They were excommunicated
-They are in schism.

Am I wrong are these not Church teachings?
 
holdencaulfield said:
I thought he taught that the Catholic Church was wrong, that would be heresy. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
His Grace never claimed that the Church was wrong, only that a couple of popes had done some things that were wrong. I gave examples of such a few posts ago. Heresy requires the obstinate rejection of a Dogma of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre was actually upholding the Traditional Church teachings on things such as religious liberty and ecumenism, stating that some of the more recent popes were erring in such matters. This doesn’t effect the infallibility of the pope or the indefectibility of the Church in any way. Popes can err in: fallible pronouncements, private matters, or actions. Archbishop Lefebvre realized that popes were doing this, and licitly resisted as St. Robert Bellarmine describes. An instance would be the Traditional Latin Mass. It is unlawful for even a pope to suppress or say that a universal Roman Rite could be abrogated. Archbishop Lefebvre knew this and was standing up to the popes who were doing these things.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Do you actually have sources for such nonsense, or are you just ranting?

Considering Vatican II didn’t speak on such a topic as the pope and Tradition, why would I quote it? You do realize right, that there were 20 Ecumenical Councils that took place before Vatican II, Councils that actually defined matters of Faith? Vatican II was completely valid, but why would I quote Vatican II when it doesn’t even touch on the subject at hand?
Click to expand...
Your not capable of grasping anything of intelligence when you refer to it as ‘nonsense’. or a rant.

When the Council speaks, it is speaking through the mouth of Tradition. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Why do you need a source? Think about it. Let it seep into your mind.

Your Abbott
 
Your Abbott,

You’d have a lot more credibility if you actually used reason or logic instead of one line answers that are nothing but you’re opinion. So far your argument, as I understand it is that the Pope is always right because he is always right, but if a Pope clearly isn’t right, then he’s a heretic and doesn’t count. Nice tautology, but not really a valid argument.

GerardP,

I’m curious where the Popes and Cardinal Ratzinger said that VII wasn’t an infallible teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top