Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter PapaBennySix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Derbingo said:
r u really supersillious?

thk so.
Click to expand...
No that would be me. I am supersillious. I was called this because I noted that two new posters after less than two weeks jump in with the insults and in a dozen posts manage to establish a rather negative image of themselves. The only reason I mentioned it was that the accustation was made that one or two SSPX members were coming in force with new logons every few weeks and doing the same thing. I know that when I am truly new to a board, and not using an additional new username to confuse people, that I usually use a little restraint until I get to know people.

I know both sides of this debate have insulted me know, but I thought in the interest of fairness this needed to be pointed out.

Sauce for the goose.
 
latinmasslover said:
Papal worship is the misunderstanding that Luther and most nonCatholics have regarding the papacy, which unfortunately some Catholics seem to have as well:

The Pope has absolute power on earth, everything he says is the Gospel truth, and to disobey in *anything *cuts you off from Christ and His Bride, the Church.
Click to expand...
Nor has anyone made this claim. It is best to let people speak for themselves and not use a strawman and name-calling, rather it be papal worship, Mary worship, Bibliolatry, or TLMolatry.
 
latinmasslover said:
Guess what? Canon law is still subject to change, not infallible, can be not quite right, allows for exceptions…need I go on?

I do know some Latin. I know a priest - in union with Rome - who is fluent in it; when there’s a question, I ask him and know I don’t get a false interpretation.

What do you mean by “what they are saying up there?”
Click to expand...
I think it is pretty clear. You pretend to be a ‘latin mass lover’, but you don’t understand what they are saying ‘up there’, behind your altar rail, with the priest’s back turned to you.
 
pnewton said:
Nor has anyone made this claim. It is best to let people speak for themselves and not use a strawman and name-calling, rather it be papal worship, Mary worship, Bibliolatry, or TLMolatry.
Click to expand...
The pope has absolute power on earth, but he is not infallible in everything he says. Nobody believes that. You are setting up that strawman, nobody else.

I don’t believe a lot of people are honest here in their argumentation.
 
pnewton said:
No that would be me. I am supersillious. I was called this because I noted that two new posters after less than two weeks jump in with the insults and in a dozen posts manage to establish a rather negative image of themselves. The only reason I mentioned it was that the accustation was made that one or two SSPX members were coming in force with new logons every few weeks and doing the same thing. I know that when I am truly new to a board, and not using an additional new username to confuse people, that I usually use a little restraint until I get to know people.

I know both sides of this debate have insulted me know, but I thought in the interest of fairness this needed to be pointed out.

Sauce for the goose.
Click to expand...
Don’t get in the middle. Take sides.
 
Lazerlike42 said:
According to a 1950 article in The American Ecclesiastical Review,

The article cites a number of sources dating back several centuries. The article is available here.

This principle does not only apply to encylicals, but to all teachings the Holy Father issues for the universal Church. Pastor Aeturnus at Vatican I said,

Quotations could be multiplied. It has been Catholic teaching for a very, very long time that the faithful owe full submission of mind and will to the teachings of the Holy Father, whether or not he is speaking infallibly.

Canon law cannot be “not quite right,” if by that you mean it can be detrimental to the faith of the faithful. Pius VI declared that the opinion that “the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,” to be “false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.”

Gregory XVI wrote,

Pius IX taught in Mirari Vos that,

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, on its article on disciplinary infalliblity, states,

Peace and God bless
Click to expand...
Please bring the argument into this century. And, quote Vatican 2 once in a while. After all, it happened not too long ago. I mean, what extents do you have to go to quote the AER from 1950? Seriously? Are they still around anymore?
 
Dioscorus said:
Please bring the argument into this century. And, quote Vatican 2 once in a while. After all, it happened not too long ago. I mean, what extents do you have to go to quote the AER from 1950? Seriously? Are they still around anymore?
Click to expand...
I purposefully chose to quote only pre-Vatican II sources for the sake of avoiding the objection that I was quoting Vatican II, and we didn’t have to accept Vatican II, or Vatican II was only pastoral, or whatever other means a person may wish to try to reject the teachings of the Council.

When dealing with Protestants, it is best to work from Scripture, as they will often accept nothing else, and when dealing with [some] traditionalists, it is best to quote from pre-Vatican II, because they will often accept nothing else.
 
Dioscorus said:
Don’t get in the middle. Take sides.
Click to expand...
Another first day poster who jumps in with criticism. Imagine that. I am not in the middle. Perhaps you make assumptions, you should read before your write. There are many issues I agree with traditionists on. One such issue is the value of justice.
 
Lazerlike42 said:
I purposefully chose to quote only pre-Vatican II sources for the sake of avoiding the objection that I was quoting Vatican II, and we didn’t have to accept Vatican II, or Vatican II was only pastoral, or whatever other means a person may wish to try to reject the teachings of the Council.

When dealing with Protestants, it is best to work from Scripture, as they will often accept nothing else, and when dealing with [some] traditionalists, it is best to quote from pre-Vatican II, because they will often accept nothing else.
Click to expand...
Too much fear and trembling…

Vatican 2 was a teaching Council. It is as valid and as powerful as the Council of Trent. Too bad for those who won’t accept it. I fear that when I hear that argument, I am dealing with one of those extremist, traditional, right of right wing groups
 
pnewton said:
Another first day poster who jumps in with criticism. Imagine that. I am not in the middle. Perhaps you make assumptions, you should read before your write.
Click to expand...
Don’t you just love ‘day-trippers’? And, what side are you on anyway?
 
Derbingo said:
Too much fear and trembling…

Vatican 2 was a teaching Council. It is as valid and as powerful as the Council of Trent. Too bad for those who won’t accept it. I fear that when I hear that argument, I am dealing with one of those extremist, traditional, right of right wing groups
Click to expand...
This may be so, but it is the obligation of us who understand the truth to bring these persons into the truth, and that will involve some level of quoting pre-Vatican II teaching to establish Vatican II’s authority.

In fact, I might argue that those who would tell someone to cite only post-Vatican II materials is guilty of the same fallacy as those who won’t accept anything after 1963: both sides treat Vatican II as a breach, rather than a segment in the continuous teaching of the Church.

If those of us who accept Vatican II are to truly accept it, then we must treat it no differently as Trent, Florence, Lateran, or Nicaea. We ought not to see either vice or virtue in quoting from pre-Vatican II or post Vatican II, anymore than we see it as better to quote from The Council of Trent than the Council of Florence.
 
Lazerlike42 said:
I purposefully chose to quote only pre-Vatican II sources for the sake of avoiding the objection that I was quoting Vatican II, and we didn’t have to accept Vatican II, or Vatican II was only pastoral, or whatever other means a person may wish to try to reject the teachings of the Council.

When dealing with Protestants, it is best to work from Scripture, as they will often accept nothing else, and when dealing with [some] traditionalists, it is best to quote from pre-Vatican II, because they will often accept nothing else.
Click to expand...
Yes. It was pretty obvious what you were doing. That was an excellent post earlier, BTW.
 
pnewton said:
Yes. It was pretty obvious what you were doing. That was an excellent post earlier, BTW.
Click to expand...
It was pretty obvious what he was doing. He was trying to crush the spirit of ecumenism of Vatican 2. Nowadays, around here, you have to be suspicious of anyone knocking Vatican 2, and that ‘it didn’t define anything’ nonsense. It’s a tip-off who they are -by their speech you will know them.
 
latinmasslover said:
Don’t forget the “I continued having sex with the Pope because he threatened to excommunicate me if I stopped.”

Don’tyou ever get tired of apples and oranges? I missed the Church document that says any of the above.
If someone has a gun, aims it at a little girl and says “I’m going to shoot that child,” and you shoot him, have you committed murder? Should you be punished? What if the other person’s gun wasn’t loaded? You murdered and should be punished, yes? Before making the obvious statement I’m sure you’re thinking, consider first the point I’m trying to make.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Your_Abbott said:
It was pretty obvious what he was doing. He was trying to crush the spirit of ecumenism of Vatican 2. Nowadays, around here, you have to be suspicious of anyone knocking Vatican 2, and that ‘it didn’t define anything’ nonsense. It’s a tip-off who they are -by their speech you will know them.
Click to expand...
I am going to be honest, I have no idea what this discussion is about. I merely saw an error in the fellow’s post, and replied with Church teaching. I recognized that some folks here may not accept anything after 1963, so I posted only stuff from following 1963 just in case. If I were dealing with someone in the regular apologetics forum, I would have quoted some of these along with Lumen Gentium paragraph 25.

I am certainly not opposed to Vatican II, and I full-heartedly accept it. Anyone who wishes to contend otherwise may view the article on my blog I wrote in which I offer some criticisms of the Tridentine Missal of the Mass of St. Pius V. I like the “TLM,” but I think the Pauline rite is superior in some ways. So no, I’m not trying to crush anything of Vatican II.

Peace and God bless
 
Duck, Lazerlike! You got everyone shooting at you on this one!:rotfl: I think it quite funny that the people who should be thanking you are on your tail!

OK Kiddies, get your score cards out here. pnewton, Lazerlike, bear all on the side of the pre-VII Church as well as the post VII Church because they are the same Church. We’ll will quote from pre and post VII times because they are in continuity. We don’t ditch one to cling to the other. They go hand in hand. The idea that you can’t prove a point by posting a pre-VII quote is just silly.

That said, some around here would ditch all post VII teachings for whatever reason. It is quite helpful to show these people that this was the teaching of the Church for all times. If someone thinks that the teachings pre-VII are outdated and shouldn’t be used, I’ll be forced to mentally put you in the category that’s just the opposite side of the coin of those who support the SSPX. Same disobedient coin, just a different side. Lazerlike, pnewton and I will argue against you just the same as the SSPX supporters because, unlike some, we are equal opportunity debaters (which is why you are probably having trouble discerning what side we lie on). We call a spade a spade. 👍

Now, really to be of some help, I’d suggest that the newer folks either look at some older conversations or observe for awhile to see exactly who might be actually defending your position because I just witnessed someone picking on Lazerlike who should have been thanking him. 🤷
 
Lazerlike42 said:
I am going to be honest, I have no idea what this discussion is about. I merely saw an error in the fellow’s post, and replied with Church teaching. I recognized that some folks here may not accept anything after 1963, so I posted only stuff from following 1963 just in case. If I were dealing with someone in the regular apologetics forum, I would have quoted some of these along with Lumen Gentium paragraph 25.

I am certainly not opposed to Vatican II, and I full-heartedly accept it. Anyone who wishes to contend otherwise may view the article on my blog I wrote in which I offer some criticisms of the Tridentine Missal of the Mass of St. Pius V. I like the “TLM,” but I think the Pauline rite is superior in some ways. So no, I’m not trying to crush anything of Vatican II.

Peace and God bless
Click to expand...
Never be afraid to quote from Vat 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top