Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter PapaBennySix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
holdencaulfield said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you misread that post. I was answering YourAbbott. No problem though, innocent mix-up.
Could you clear this up for me? I was under this impression about SSPX:
Click to expand...
-They are heretics
Click to expand...
Most certaintly not the case and the Church has never stated such.
-They were excommunicated
Click to expand...
The bishops were, the priests and laity (which can’t technically be SSPX anyway) were not. The situation however is very debatable, and it can be argued that canonically, the excommunications were injust, and hence invalid.
-They are in schism.
Click to expand...
Rome has recognized the situation of the SSPX as being more of an “internal reconciliation.” The answer to this question though, is very similiar to the last.
Am I wrong are these not Church teachings?
Click to expand...
I would say more misinformed.

BTW, did you go to the TLM today? I didn’t see that you posted in the other thread that you went. PM me, or post on that thread, to let us know how it went. God Bless.
 
GodIsSalvation said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tautology? right! Tautology is the use of redundant language.

The Pope is always right because he is the Pope. Pope can’t be a heretic. That is a matter of faith, not of rhetoric.

BTW When someone called two (popes) heretics, I assumed that they were referring to Benedict IX and Alexander VI. There may have been a lot of things but they weren’t heretics.

I believe that V2 was infallible in its teaching. With all your in’s and out’s you must have misunderstood someone’s logic. I never said that Ratzinger ever said such a thing.

Your Abbott.
 
Your_Abbott said:
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?
Click to expand...
[sarcasm]Wow. Such scholarly and intelligent answers. I must say, I am completely baffled.[/sarcasm]

Never mind, that you didn’t at all answer my question, or that it was your original post that in fact lacked any intelligence.
Why do you need a source? Think about it. Let it seep into your mind.
Click to expand...
Your Abbott
Click to expand...
I think I’ve heard something like this before:
40.png
mgrfin:
Why do you or I need a source. I think for myself. If I am wrong, then point out why. What is this source thing? Haven’t you the proper education, the right credentials for this job?

Charity to all!

prayers and peace
Click to expand...
Mgrfin? :confused:
 
SemperFidelis said:
Mgrfin?
Click to expand...
I have to research this person. You seem to have a hangup about him/her. (I’ m having a computer problem. You’re giving me a virus?) This person makes a lot of sense. Stick to the issue instead of rambling off on tangents.

Your Abbott
 
Your_Abbott said:
I have to research this person.
Click to expand...
Go ahead. The fact that you have been compared to him by more than just one person should make you think twice about the manner in which you post.
You seem to have a hangup about him/her.
Click to expand...
One post equals a “hangup?”
(I’ m having a computer problem. You’re giving me a virus?)
Click to expand...
Yep. Your computer is doomed!
 
I don’t believe this is inconsistent with what I said and I think that we agree. When the Pope acts as to practical directions, that is ex cathedera, in my understanding, because the Pope is issuing rules of the Church as the Vicar of Christ. Just because this quote doesn’t use the term ex cathedera doesn’t mean that the term doesn’t apply. My only point is that everything the Pope says isn’t infallible.
Click to expand...
I’m fiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnallly back for the evening. Sorry for not responding earlier. I’ve just skimmed through the last round of posts so if I’ve missed answering something, let me know. I know you asked for a link to Cardinal Ratzinger using the blameworthy statement. Here’s that for you:
sspx.org/images/Miscellaneous/ratzingerdecree_4june93_520x680.jpg

Ex Cathedra refers to a pope defining a doctine of the Church. I could be wrong but I’m fairly certain that it doesn’t apply to other organs of infallibility. newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm
I think that we agree.
Click to expand...
Probably. 👍
I apologize, but many traditionalist have a very different take on this story and most NO Catholics I talk to have never even heard of it. Trying to research it is also difficult because most of the information is from one side.
Click to expand...
No worries. I’m quite used to it. One side likes to repeatedly bring up something they deem to be scandalous and the other side doesn’t feel the need to keep addressing it 10 or 20 years later.
Once again, its my mistake, but see above. However, I do appreciate you being patient with me.
Click to expand...
No problem. Here is one tip though. If someone considers something scandalous or damning, it’s bound to have been brought up on one of these forums!:rolleyes:
This wasn’t a swipe at you, but in general, most forums, this one included, are more about winning an argument and being “right” than actually getting to the heart of the matter. I don’t mean to offend, and this isn’t directed at anyone in particular, but it irritates me when people post things like “Assisi? I guess the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree” or insinuate that because I don’t think the SSPX is the home of the next antichrist I must be a sedevacantist.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: I’ve never heard the antichrist comment before. Sounds like someone had too much coffee at breakfast. Sedevacantist, however, are a little trickier. They’re not always forthcoming about their status. It causes quite a lot of confusion.🤷
Agreed. I guess I should be censured for not citing adverse authority, but I believe my point still stands. The Church’s view of the SSPX is evolving and the very recent (at least in Vatican time) statements of Cardinal Hoyos seem to me to be the best indication of where the Church stands now. As I said before. I believe that if it weren’t for much dissent among the Church hierarchy over Summorum Pontificam, the SSPX might have already been removed from their irregular position.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not too sure about it. Of course, either answer would be your opinion or mine. In regards to the SSPX and Summorum Ponfiticam, I’m not to sure about that either.
 
SemperFidelis said:
BTW, did you go to the TLM today? I didn’t see that you posted in the other thread that you went. PM me, or post on that thread, to let us know how it went. God Bless.
Click to expand...
I decided just to go to High Mass on Sunday. I’m looking forward though, thanks.
 
bear06 said:
Ex Cathedra refers to a pope defining a doctine of the Church. I could be wrong but I’m fairly certain that it doesn’t apply to other organs of infallibility.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true, and only two doctrines have been defined Ex Cathedra:
  • The Assumption
  • The Immaculate Conception
 
SemperFidelis said:
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.
Click to expand...
There you go again with Robert Bellarmine. Now you put your foot in your mouth. Where does it say in the law of the Church that the pope couldn’t suppress or say that a universal Roman Rite could be abrogate.

The Holy Father could say tomorrow that the Roman Rite was now going to be the Greek Rite, and all Masses would in Greek, and we would have to follow the Ordo of the Greek Uniate Church.

You forget that the Pope is the Pope. (There is that tautology again). (I just love arguing agains the errancy of youth)

Your Abbott
 
Your_Abbott said:
There you go again with Robert Bellarmine. Now you put your foot in your mouth. Where does it say in the law of the Church that the pope couldn’t suppress or say that a universal Roman Rite could be abrogate.

The Holy Father could say tomorrow that the Roman Rite was now going to be the Greek Rite, and all Masses would in Greek, and we would have to follow the Ordo of the Greek Uniate Church.

You forget that the Pope is the Pope. (There is that tautology again). (I just love arguing agains the errancy of youth)

Your Abbott
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. The Pope cannot just say anything he wants. He cannot contradict any previous Tradition.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Many popes have erred and have been material heretics. Pope Adrian VI says so himself:

You know, I’ve seen this quote before but I’ve never found the actual document for this. Do you by any chance have it?
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
…continued
And as far as John goes, he never put forth an official teaching that was heretical. More from the CE:
In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or athe pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whateverfter their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, . Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, when dealing with disciplines they can all be right. Disciplines are mutable. This is why they have a negative infallibility attached to them. In other words the same disciplines may not be good for all times but they are good for their time. Again, I highly recommend this article from the CE:

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm
 
However Pope Liberious (sp?) was not teaching infallibly.

You may find this interesting: This
 
holdencaulfield said:
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. The Pope cannot just say anything he wants. He cannot contradict any previous Tradition.
Click to expand...
The Holy Father is not constrained or constricted by any previous pope. His power, according to the Law of the Church, is absolute. He can convene a General Council, oversee its decisions, ratity and approve, provide everything for the need of the Church, even if that needs cheese sandwiches. He can issue apostolic letters, encyclicals, bulls, and definitions, if he decides to define ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, intending to define. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the Pope.

Where in the law of the Church does it say he must obey the law of some former pope? That is not what the law of the Church says. Research if you will.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Sorry, I have to disagree with you. The Pope cannot just say anything he wants. He cannot contradict any previous Tradition.
Click to expand...
The umbrella of infallibility prevents the Holy Father from defining anything that has been define already. Tradition is the unwritten revealed teaching of the Apostles. The Pope can not contradict that by virtue of his office.
 
Is it the contention that Vatican II is not infallible based on the fact that it was not a Church council, or that it did not cover any area in the area of faith and morals, but rather stuck with pastoral issues?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top