Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[GodIsSalvation]

Bear06,

You raise some good points, but I don’t think that you’re aware of the whole situation.

I can understand your reluctance to take Cardinal Hoyos’ words as the final statement on the matter, but his statement, taken together with Summorum Pontificam and the meetings between Pope Benedict and the SSPX leadership are much more indicative that the SSPX is not a schismatic group than that they are. Even if you place reliance in the MP Ecclesia Dei as a document that declares the SSPX as absolutely schismatic (which I wouldn’t concede), I think you’ll admit that much of what JPII promulgated has already been discarded by Pope Benedict (e.g., the Sainthood process will no longer be accelerated, the Good Friday prayer wasn’t substantively changed despite JPII’s insistence on good relations with the Jews, the increased promulgation of the TLM, etc.). I believe the irregular state of the SSPX will be one of the next legacies of JPII to go.

I also think you’ve missed some things about Bishop Bruskewitz’s threatened excomunications. First of all, there was an appeal and it applied only to Call to Action. On this appeal, Bishop Bruskewitz’s decision was upheld, but the document upholding it applied only to Call to Action. As to the SSPX, from what I understand, although I could be wrong, soon after he threatened excommunications, Bishop Burkewitz’s diocese set up a TLM and SSPX stopped having their masses there. This made the threatened excommunications moot. Consequently, I have a hard time understanding how this proves the SSPX is schismatic because there was no appeal on behalf of the SSPX and as far as I know, no one was actually excommunicated for being associated with the SSPX. If authority conflicts, as it seems to do here, I think that the Prefect of the CDF is a better authority than the Bishop of a Diocese in Nebraska. If I missed something here, please let me know.

As to the Hawaii six, I think that you’re totally off base. The excommunications were overturned because the decree that issued them “lacks foundation and hence validity.” This doesn’t sound like a flaw in cannonical procedure was the reason. I think you may be thinking of the original letter overturning the excommunications, in which a Cardinal (I believe) stated that there would nevertheless be consequences for the six and cited Cannon Law as to that proposition. That part of the letter was later abrogated by direction of Cardinal Ratzinger because Cannon Law did not really support such sanctions so that there were no reprecussions (at least as far as I know) from the Church. Also, the Hawaii six had a leader of the SSPX preside over confirmations at their church. This seems to be a much bigger deal than “associating” with the SSPX, which is the basis for Bishop Bruskewitz’s decree. Accordingly, unless you can find something that distinguishes these circumstances in a way that indicates the SSPX is heretical, I think you’ve missed the bigger picture. In other words, “I rely on what the Church officially puts out. . . .”

Finally, your analogy to attending a Protestant wedding is a false one that is easily distinguishable. Attending a wedding ceremony one time is different in many degrees from helping to fund an SSPX chapel and then asking an SSPX priest to preside over a confirmation ceremony (or attending mass at an SSPX chapel on a regular basis). I highly doubt that anyone who helped to fund a Lutheran church and then asked a Lutheran minister administer sacraments would fall into the same category as a person who merely attended a Lutheran wedding. Because the Hawaii six were cleared of any wrongdoing by the Prefect of the CDF for these actions and (presumably and hopefully) would not have been had it been a Lutheran church and pastor instead of an SSPX chapel and priest, it clearly does not follow that the SSPX is heretical because you can attend the wedding ceremony of a heretical group without sanction.

I agree with you that most of the leaders in the Church are trying to get the SSPX out of their irregular state within Church, but I doubt that there will be many splinterings of those who attend SSPX masses. Most of them truly and devoutly believe they are working for the betterment of the RCC by sticking to their guns when it comes to the TLM. I think that most of the current evidence indicates that some time within the next decade or so the excommunications of the SSPX bishops will be lifted (not overturned) and the SSPX will be given a non-territorial prelature, much like the one enjoyed by Opus Dei. I’d be interested to see what your reaction would be if this did happen.

 

[Your_Abbott]

.

The Holy Father is the servant of Tradition? Please…At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it. Apparently you never accepted Vatican I either.

Your Abbott.

 

[latinmasslover]

I can square with Assisi. No problem. You going to give us that ‘heretical’ pope nonsense, or that the Roman Catholic Church is now a sect, or that the See of Peter is now vacant, or some other dismal assessment of "that they all may be one’. The Holy Father can move in the 20th Century towards Ecumenism as he saw fit, since all other efforts have failed. He did nothing the Lord Jesus himself would not have done, and where is it written that he is limited to some definition of yours about what Tradition is.
Thank God for the Vicar of Christ on earth acting as the Spirit moved him. He is seated in the See of Tradition and you are not.

Your Abbott

The only way you could approve of Assisi is if you believe the pope is God. Read a little of what papal infallibility really is, it will do you a lot of good.

Honorius sat on the Seat of Peter, as did Stephen VI and Alexander VI. Read up on them, and justify their actions. After all, they’re “acting as the Spirit moved” them. Only problem is, it’s not always the Spirit of God that they choose to follow. Keep that in mind before you make the popes out to be impeccable.

 

[latinmasslover]

Wow, where did you get that notion that Tradition was simpler and more direct and intelligible than the Bible? What strange theology is that? Do you have some modern day theologians who hold to that? Maybe you can dig up something from Robert Bellarmine? You put yourself way out on a limb, and being blind, you won’t be able to find yourself back.

Your Abbott

A blind man is more likely to find his way back using his senses than a blind man following a blind guide.

 

[latinmasslover]

The Holy Father is the servant of Tradition? Please…At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it. Apparently you never accepted Vatican I either.

Your Abbott.

Don’t take Vatican I out of context as well.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I can square with Assisi. No problem.

Well, I wish you could explain it to me, because I’ve seen countless people try, and they fall flat on their face everytime. Trying to defend the indefensible is noble, but at a certain you just have to realize you can’t do it.

You going to give us that ‘heretical’ pope nonsense, or that the Roman Catholic Church is now a sect, or that the See of Peter is now vacant,

I’ve espoused my views on sedevacantism many times in this thread. Pay attention. A pope can’t be a formal heretic, it is impossible, end of story. A pope can not be judged or deposed, but can be resisted when he acts against the Faith. A pope can be a material heretic and still be pope, and many recent popes have come very close. This doesn’t mean they’re not the pope though. They should however be resisted as the Fathers and Doctors describe.

 

[Derbingo]

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.

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.

I went down to the Library and found the Bible. It is one book, easy to find. Every home has a copy. They even have them in hotel rooms, just in case you don’t have one when you are travelling.

But, when I looked on the shelf for Tradition I couldn’t find it. It is some kind of amorphous mass - some here, some there. Origen, Polycarp, the Eastern fathers, St. Augustine, all the Synods, and Councils, creeds, catechisms, papal statements, letters, testimony of Doctors of the Church, the Patristic fathers, theologians, the average ‘man in the pew’ - all go to make up Tradition. It is no simple job understanding Tradition, or cataloging it.

Tradition is not clear and concise. But I forgot you were busy doing your correlations that you didn’t see that. Oh, you’re blind too? I forgot. Sorry.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I must agree with latinmasslover to a point. Although I don’t see the SSPX as the true Church and I definitely don’t think that the Church is off the tracks or that the Seat of Peter is vacant, I think that we can all agree that the popes have been wrong before and will likely be wrong again. Although I like Pope John Paul II overall, I can see how many of the things he did were not necessarily keeping with Catholic Dogma and why this offends some people so greatly.

Also, a good point about papal infallibility is that only pronouncements issued ex cathedera are infallible; not every last word that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is infallible. Just look at how Pope Benedict has reversed course on many of the changes made by JPII like the acceleration of the Sainthood process, the promulgation of the TLM, etc.

My point is that just because Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul said something doesn’t mean that they were right. The Pope is not God. But on the other hand, the words of the Pope, whether JPII or Benedict, carry great weight and should be heeded.

Also, Your Abbott, I would really like to hear how you square Assisi and JPII’s comments about how the Old Covenant is still in effect with Catholic Dogma. Like I said before, I really like Pope John Paul II, but some of the things he did trouble me. Instead of just hearing you anticpating arguments, I’d really like to hear your reasoning.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Wow, where did you get that notion that Tradition was simpler and more direct and intelligible than the Bible?

Uh, that is what Tradition is. It is an clear explanation of the Faith. Read the Church Councils. The whole point of a Church Council is to clarify a point of Tradition. Once it has been clarified, it is clear, direct and far more intelligible than the Bible.

 

[bear06]

Also, a good point about papal infallibility is that only pronouncements issued ex cathedera are infallible; not every last word that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is infallible.

While I agree with the latter statement the former statement is incorrect. I would suggest the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Ecclesiastical Disciplines and I would also read the article on Infallibility. People like to ignore it but there’s a little thing called Disciplinary Infallibility for one.

Just look at how Pope Benedict has reversed course on many of the changes made by JPII like the acceleration of the Sainthood process, the promulgation of the TLM, etc.

This one always cracks me up. First of all the new push to call into question the infallibility of canonizations in laughable. It goes hand in hand with trying to say the only things infallible are spoken ex cathedra (which is not Church Tradition). The next thing I find funny is that Pope John Paul II canonized something like 105 saints by name in 28 years. Pope Benedict, the guy who is supposed to be slowing things down has already canonized 14 in 3 years and has beatified over 500.

My point is that just because Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul said something doesn’t mean that they were right. The Pope is not God. But on the other hand, the words of the Pope, whether JPII or Benedict, carry great weight and should be heeded.

Agreed. The problem here is that nobody is making the argument that every word our of a pope’s mouth is right.

Also, Your Abbott, I would really like to hear how you square Assisi and JPII’s comments about how the Old Covenant is still in effect with Catholic Dogma. Like I said before, I really like Pope John Paul II, but some of the things he did trouble me. Instead of just hearing you anticpating arguments, I’d really like to hear your reasoning.

Maybe it would be helpful if you quoted the Church documents where this was said and/or done.

 

[Your_Abbott]

Uh, that is what Tradition is. It is an clear explanation of the Faith. Read the Church Councils. The whole point of a Church Council is to clarify a point of Tradition. Once it has been clarified, it is clear, direct and far more intelligible than the Bible.

The unwritten word of God to the Apostles. That is the story of Tradition. Now, it has been handed down, bit by bit, truth by truth during the centuries. Infallibility of the Pope is part of Tradition, as is the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception. Yeah, that’s all easy to see and to understand. Something defined in 1950 is so far away from the Apostles, yet it is a defined truth of our faith. The Bible didn’t move like this. A nice simple book. Where is your book on the Immaculate Conception. Where is the clear exposition of that in the Fourth Century?

Tradition is a very complicated subject. That is why we have had heresy after heresy over the centuries. Tell me what is so clear about the definition of the Assumption that a definition was required since it is not in the Bible? What is your goal in defending Tradition in such a way? It is not easier or more simple than the Bible. Ask the Protestants.

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

While I agree with the latter statement the former statement is incorrect. I would suggest the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Ecclesiastical Disciplines and I would also read the article on Infallibility. People like to ignore it but there’s a little thing called Disciplinary Infallibility for one.

This one always cracks me up. First of all the new push to call into question the infallibility of canonizations in laughable. It goes hand in hand with trying to say the only things infallible are spoken ex cathedra (which is not Church Tradition). The next thing I find funny is that Pope John Paul II canonized something like 105 saints by name in 28 years. Pope Benedict, the guy who is supposed to be slowing things down has already canonized 14 in 3 years and has beatified over 500.

Agreed. The problem here is that nobody is making the argument that every word our of a pope’s mouth is right.

Maybe it would be helpful if you quoted the Church documents where this was said and/or done.

There is nothing intrinsically evil about the TLM. It has been around for centuries. I don’t see anything wrong with Assisi. The Supreme Pontiff didn’t do anything intrinsically wrong at Assisi. He had nothing to confess to his confessor, and nothing to be ashamed of. Are you saying that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth did something that Christ himself would not do? That is the Pope’s measure of what he should do? What would Jesus do?

Can you show me documents where the Pontiff did something that was sinful? As an add-on, if the Pope canonized someone without the usual investigation, would that invalidate the canonization? Of course not.

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

Uh, that is what Tradition is. It is an clear explanation of the Faith. Read the Church Councils. The whole point of a Church Council is to clarify a point of Tradition. Once it has been clarified, it is clear, direct and far more intelligible than the Bible.

You are showing your ignorance of the Councils of the Church. There was hardly a Council that was not held except in a pitched battle. There were arguments before, during and after.

Popes, saints, heretics alike were burned in effigy. Councils caused the Great Schism. Protestants finally were locked out of Trent - look at the battles fought at the Council of Trent. See the concerns at the First Vatican. The Church is not upset that some people don’t accept Vatican 2, because that is what happens at Councils - fights, battles, hard won and fought decisions. Eventually, people come around. All Catholics will come to realize that Vatican 2 had something to teach us.

Your Abbott

 

[bear06]

There is nothing intrinsically evil about the TLM. It has been around for centuries. I don’t see anything wrong with Assisi. The Supreme Pontiff didn’t do anything intrinsically wrong at Assisi. He had nothing to confess to his confessor, and nothing to be ashamed of. Are you saying that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth did something that Christ himself would not do? That is the Pope’s measure of what he should do? What would Jesus do?

Can you show me documents where the Pontiff did something that was sinful? As an add-on, if the Pope canonized someone without the usual investigation, would that invalidate the canonization? Of course not.

Your Abbott

Uh, I’m not really sure why you are aiming this at me.

 

[pnewton]

Assisi? I guess the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.To go back to the topic of this thread, Lefebvre’s use of Martin Luther for comparison purposes is no more than intellectual name-calling. And this man is supposed to be more knoweledgable on tradition than John Paul II?

 

[stmaria]

The Holy Father is the servant of Tradition? Please…At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it. Apparently you never accepted Vatican I either.

Your Abbott.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy,

 

[Your_Abbott]

Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy,

What a lot of nonsense. The Supreme Pontiff is just that - Supreme. Who is going to contest him.? How did Gregory come up with Gregorian Chant. Did we have such from the Apostles, or from the Old Testament Jews?

He is Pope. Tomorrow he can declare that the Mass is to be in koine Greet. Alpha, beta, gamma… We’d learn it cause we have too.

The Holy Father does not have power from the people. He doesn’t need their approbation. He can do what he wants cause he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. He makes the rules. His power comes from Jesus Christ.

"Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . " Hogwash. I see here people marking the great power of Cardinal Hogos - that man’s power is nil - it is dependent on the Holy Father. When the Pontiff speaks, we all listen, because he speaks with the authority of Jesus Christ. Trot out what books you want from conservative authors - they don’t matter a hill of beans.

Your Abbott

 

[GodIsSalvation]

bear 06, I may be misunderstanding your point, but are trying to say that all disciplinary actions by the Pope are infallible? This site itself has a page stating:

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. Emphasis added.

If you have something that contradicts this, I would be happy to see it so that we can figure out why there seems to be a discrepancy.

Also, the requirements for infallibility, as promulgated by Vatican I, are that:

[T]he Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”) [and] he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole Church."

The Vatican I Council and the article I cited seem to think that a teaching must be ex cathedera before it becomes infallible. Also, anything around since Vatican I, I would think would count as a tradition of the Church (although I’m sure some on this thread would disagree with me). Do you have anything that authoritively disputes this?

Also, I do not doubt any cannonizations and I don’t appreciate anyone insinuating that I do. I merely brought it up to point out a policy of the previous Pope that was later changed by the current one. You seem to be saying that anything said by a Pope is infallible, even if its not ex cathedera, which seems impossible, especially because previous popes have been wrong on a number of their non-ex cathedera teachings.

Finally, Pope JPII said in Mainz:

“The meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church. . . .”

This, along with other quotes has been interpreted by the USCCB as meaning that the Old Covenant has never been revoked and that Jews shouldn’t be converted to Catholicism. See here. This runs totally contrary to what was stated by the Council of Florence through Pope Eugene IV, speaking infallibly, when he said the Old Covenant had been revoked and the RCC and the sacraments of the New Covenant were the only path to God.

Also, at Assisi, Pope JPII gathered leaders of many religions from throughout the world and asked them all to pray to “their own gods” for peace. At one point, a Buddhist shrine was set up on an alter (at the Church of St. Peter, I believe). Additionally, he was even annointed by a Hindu priestess in India, much to the chagrin of local Hindu bishops. See here.

As I said before, I really do like JPII, but after finding out about this, my respect for him as a pope was somewhat shaken. I don’t believe that Jesus would ever have even implicitly denied the supremacy of the Church or been annoited by the priest of a false religion. I also don’t believe the Pope must act as Jesus would because the Pope is still a man, and therefore still an imperfect sinner and to suggest otherwise is elevate the Pope to a level on par with God.

If someone could explain how these actions of JPII (e.g., Assisi, being annointed by the priestess of another religion) logically squares with Dogma, I would be happy to hear it. However, I would actually like an explanation instead of name calling, lumping me in with a certain group, or referring back to a point that was never adequately proven or referenced.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

He is Pope. Tomorrow he can declare that the Mass is to be in koine Greet. Alpha, beta, gamma… We’d learn it cause we have too.

Your Abbott,

What if the Pope came out tomorrow and decided that Mary was just another woman and not really the Mother of God or that Jesus wasn’t physically present in the host? Would still say “It doesn’t matter, he’s the Pope and his authority is from Jesus.”? And before you answer, realize that popes in the past have done some pretty egregious things. Do you ever stop to think that by comparing the Pope to Jesus you’re really idolizing him as next to God?

 

[Your_Abbott]

.

The Holy Father is infallible when he speaks out ‘ex cathedra’ on matters of faith and morals, when he so intends to define.

But, over and above this, without ‘ex cathedra’, the power of the Pontiff is still Supreme. That is why we call him the Supreme Pontiff. He rules the Church. Some pontiffs rule it with an iron fist, others are more moderate. The Pope does not need a General Council, or Ecumenical Council to give him power. He calls the Council, if he wants, he approves what the Council has done, or he rejects it. Such is the power of Papacy.

Your Abbott