Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[SFD]

The Pauline rite of Mass is a Mass that was formed in order to reach out to people of today’s culture, just as the other various Liturgies that have been celebrated throughout history were.

What are your sources for this statement?

Lazerlike42:

Now some people may prefer and get the most out of a Tridentine Mass. They are permitted to attend. However, some folks, like this fellow here, may receive the most when attending a Pauline rite Mass.

And some protestants might claim they get more out of a protestant service…so what.

Lazerlike42:

Remember, the Grace available at any Mass is the same: it is the Grace of the body of Christ. However, in order to receive any Grace, we must be open to it. We receive Grace from any Sacrament insofar as we dispose ourselves and do not put up obstacles to it. Some people may be able to dispose themselves better at a Pauline rite, due to the familiarity with the language, the greater involvement in the prayers that the laity have, or any number of other things.

Again, this is simply not relevant.

Lazerlike42:

If this is not the case for you, that is perfectly ok, but please don’t insult pr question the honesty of those who find the most Grace in a Pauline Mass, something I have seen done far too often. If this man found himself lost during the years of the Tridentine Mass and has been able to return to Christ thanks to the Pauline rite, rejoice!

While many more either left the Church for a protestant sect or developed their own set of accepted teachings, making them effectively protestant. Don’t you think others notice that most Catholics today have their own set of rules in faith and morals?

Lazerlike42:

I think that the parable of the Prodigal Son is tremendously valuable for this sort of discussion. We always remember what happened to the younger son, but we ought to pay attention as well to the older son. When the younger son returned, the older son did not rejoice and join the banquet. He was angry with the younger son and even with the Father. He complained about what he had received over the years, and now what was being done for the younger son.

I don’t see any relevance here.

This is precisely what happens so often with traditionalist movement regarding the Mass. The Pauline Mass has helped countless people return to or find the Church, including Chuck here, myself, and folks like Dr. Hahn. However, rather than rejoice in our salvation - that we were dead and are alive again - there is a tendancy, just like the older son, to say, “what about me? I had to suffer through this Mass for so many years. What about me?” I believe God the Father would say the same thing that was said to the older son in the parable: “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found”

The traditionalist movement is a holding action…it has nothing to do with protestant converts. Did it ever occur to you that these famous protestant converts might have a weak understanding of the Church’s own teaching about Her nature?

Lazerlike42:

In fact, the Holy Spirit has also guided and protected the Pauline rite of Mass.

The Holy Ghost does not guide liturgical rites…He protects those who promulgate them from making a doctrinal error in their promulgation.

Lazerlike42:

Further quotations can be provided. The point I am making is that you do not have to prefer the Pauline rite of Mass to the rite of Pius V, but according to pre-Vatican II Church teaching, it is impossible that the rite of Paul VI could be detrimental to the Church or to the faith of the people.

But it was. You cannot argue with facts…although many here try to do just that.

SFD

 

[Chuck_H]

So the Mass of countless saints, martyrs, and over 250 Popes was a silent abstracted ceremony without awe? You clearly never grasped the true meaning of the sacrifice of the Mass.
.
The priest does more than just “preside” over the mass.

The fact that the Traditional Mass still exists today just as it did during the time of Pope Gregory in spite of churchmen who have tried to destroy this Holy Mass in every way possible, is proof that the Holy Spirit is protecting this most holy sacrifice.

I am saying that the Hierarchy of the middle Church had gotten to the point where it was inevitable that they would be taken down a peg or two. God had been sealed off from the people inside a rail and the Church did not give freely of the graces of God but doled them out like the rich to beggars.

The new mass brings us as the laity back to where we are supposed to be, the people of God joined with Jesus in worshiping and giving thanks to the Father, our celebration presided over by a priest to keep it real but full and active participants in the sacrifice of the mass.

The tridentine mass was a form of several in the history of the Church but all had the essentials that made them valid and real. The tridentine mass however, had nuances in it that subjugated rather than freed and the ceremonies and arrangement of the altar separated us and reinforced the idea that the cleric was special while we were not. Priests, bishops, cardinals and popes had forgotten that they were servants not masters and as Latin dropped away from the language of commerce for the main mass of the Church it became mumbo jumbo and holy of holies in its missing the whole point of the Church.

I am saying that the Holy Spirit cleaned house and gave us a level playing field back.

Maybe harsh, but that is my story and I am sticking to it. I don’t condemn anyone but I reserve the right to say that is wrong.

 

[Chuck_H]

The Holy Ghost does not guide liturgical rites…He protects those who promulgate them from making a doctrinal error in their promulgation.

SFD

Get real! The Holy Spirit does what the Holy Spirit wants. Who in his right mind is willing to put bindings on the Holy Spirit???

 

[SFD]

Get real! The Holy Spirit does what the Holy Spirit wants. Who in his right mind is willing to put bindings on the Holy Spirit???

You misunderstand, Chuck. We know what the Church teaches about Herself…the infallibility of the Church in her disciplines…papal infallibility…etc. We understand these things as the Church teaches them to us. If I simply repeat what the Church teaches, I am in no way putting “limits” on the Holy Ghost…I am explaining what the Holy Ghost teaches through the teachings of the Church he is a protector of.

SFD

 

[Lazerlike42]

What are your sources for this statement?

It’s common knowledge. The reason that the Liturgy of St. Mark is different from the Liturgy of St. Thomas is because St. Mark was creating a Liturgy for a different culture than St. Thomas. The culture of Egypt was incorporated into the Liturgy of St. Mark so that it would best convey the truths of the faith to the people in that Egypt, whereas the culture of India was incorporated into the Liturgy of St. Thomas so that it would best convey the truths of the faith to those in India.

And some protestants might claim they get more out of a protestant service…so what.

There is a dramatic difference. What Protestants receive at their services is (in general) a good feeling and a sermon about some passage of the Bible. What Catholics receive at the Mass is a) the Grace conveyed by the Holy Eucharist and b) the fruits of the Mass. They receive real, true Grace at Mass. Yet Grace can only be received by those who are properly disposed. If a Catholic feels more comfortable at one Mass over another, he is better able to dispose himself and is objectively receiving more Grace than he would be at a Mass where he felt less comfortable.

There are limits to this, because we have to take into account the detriment that can be found at a Mass. For example, at a clown Mass there is a great deal of negative stuff going on that a person will soak in. As a result, even if the person is able to dispose himself very well to receiving Grace, he’s still going to be getting all kinds of crazy and irreverent ideas about God, and so that’s probably going to harm his soul a great deal and render any Grace he may have received very ineffective practicallly speaking. It’s the same idea as if a person went to a Tridentine Mass but was preached an overtly heretical sermon: that person isn’t going to benefit from the Mass nearly so much as a person who attended a Tridentine Mass with a wonderful sermon. The negative effects of that sermon will just hurt the fellow’s soul.

Again, this is simply not relevant.

The disposition a person has to Grace is *extremely *relevant. The purpose of Mass is the glorification of God and the sanctification of souls. If a person is better able to receive the Grace available at a Mass, that means that he is more greatly sanctified and that the Mass has effected it’s purpose better. The most reverential and beautiful Liturgy in the world would be utterly worthless if it did not lead to the sanctification of souls.

While many more either left the Church for a protestant sect or developed their own set of accepted teachings…

A good study of history will show that people left the Church not over the Mass, but over Humanae Vitai, and that, more importantly, the dissension already existed in the Church long before the 60s. There was all kinds of dissidece present in the Church in the 1950s. It was quiet at that time. Vatican II was used as an excuse for these dissidents to reveal themselves. They came to exist in the Church, however, while the Missal of Pius V was still in universal use in the Latin rite.

I don’t see any relevance here.

The relevance is that the older son sinned in that he did not rejoice at the return of the younger son, but rather moped over his own desires. The traditionalist movement often utterly fails to rejoice in the conversion of souls to the Church, and rather complains about all that it has had to suffer. This is a grave, grave sin against charity. I have even had a traditionalist once suggest that it would be better that I not have found God and the Pauline Mass to never have been created than for the situation as it is now, a situation in which I have found God and salvation.

The traditionalist movement is a holding action…it has nothing to do with protestant converts. Did it ever occur to you that these famous protestant converts might have a weak understanding of the Church’s own teaching about Her nature?

Perhaps it is the traditionalists that have a weak understanding of the Church’s own teaching about her nature. I find more often than not that I know far more about the Church’s teaching than the traditionalists I deal with, and that Protestant converts like myself exhibit far greater obedience to traditional Catholic teaching than do traditionalists, a point which I will illustrate below.

The Holy Ghost does not guide liturgical rites…He protects those who promulgate them from making a doctrinal error in their promulgation. But is was. You cannot argue with facts…although many here try to do just that.

It was the teaching of Pius VI, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX that the Church is nfallible in her discipline - which includes Liturgy - insofar as that the Church is protected by God from enforcing a discpline that is harmful to the Church and to the faith. You may try to judge the past 40 years and reject the Mass of Paul VI, but that is no different from a Protestant rejecting the Church because of his judgment of the Bible. The teaching of Holy Mother Church tells us that no Liturgy she proposes for the faithful can be harmful to them or to Her. Whatever our thoughts about what we see, we must submit our judgments to the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Holy Mother Church says, through three popes and the consensus of theologians prior to Vatican II, that it is not possible for the Church’s Liturgy to harm the faithful. I, a Protestant convert, choose to submit myself to that teaching, recognizing it as the will of the Spirit and the teaching of Holy Mother Church. If you truly embrace the tradition which you espouse, you will submit your own judgments to Her in this way as well.

Peace and God bless

 

[Chuck_H]

You misunderstand, Chuck. We know what the Church teaches about Herself…the infallibility of the Church in her disciplines…papal infallibility…etc. We understand these things as the Church teaches them to us. If I simply repeat what the Church teaches, I am in no way putting “limits” on the Holy Ghost…I am explaining what the Holy Ghost teaches through the teachings of the Church he is a protector of.

SFD

And if He so choses to shake things up a bit through a Council of Cardinals and Bishops and a Pope that brings dramatic changes to the mass, it makes sense that He has done it well within the “normal process” and He has His reasons and we should gladly say Amen!

Look, If one can’t trust a Vatican Council and a Pope elected by normal means what makes one any different than Luther and Knox and Calvin?

 

[Chuck_H]

darned convert:blush:

You always have a better grasp than us “lifelongs”

That’s admiration rather than admonition up there at the top by the way.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

We still love you!:hug1:

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

And we have missals because…? If one pays attention during the Mass on any sort of regular basis, they learn. And what do you mean by “latin mass lover?” I can’t speak it fluently, but I understand what is going up on the altar, with the priest offering the sacrifice with his face to God Almighty.

 

[latinmasslover]

There is no reason to get obscene!

Tell that to the popes that are guilty of the crime, assuming they’re in heaven when you get there.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

Abbott has implied this, surely you won’t deny that? I’m sure he doesn’t hold the “papist” belief, but I try to make his implications more obvious.

 

[SFD]

It’s common knowledge. The reason that the Liturgy of St. Mark is different from the Liturgy of St. Thomas is because St. Mark was creating a Liturgy for a different culture than St. Thomas. The culture of Egypt was incorporated into the Liturgy of St. Mark so that it would best convey the truths of the faith to the people in that Egypt, whereas the culture of India was incorporated into the Liturgy of St. Thomas so that it would best convey the truths of the faith to those in India.

You are comparing early liturgies with a completely new liturgy. There is little to be learned from this comparision. What “culture” was the Novus Ordo devised for? “Modern man” is not a new culture…is it?

There is a dramatic difference. What Protestants receive at their services is (in general) a good feeling and a sermon about some passage of the Bible. What Catholics receive at the Mass is a) the Grace conveyed by the Holy Eucharist and b) the fruits of the Mass. They receive real, true Grace at Mass. Yet Grace can only be received by those who are properly disposed. If a Catholic feels more comfortable at one Mass over another, he is better able to dispose himself and is objectively receiving more Grace than he would be at a Mass where he felt less comfortable.

You misunderstand me here…I was merely saying that whatever “feeling” one gets is hardly relevant when comparing the liturgies. A “properly disposed” Catholic at an invalid mass gets no graces from that invalid mass…although he may recieve many graces due to his pious disposition.

There are limits to this, because we have to take into account the detriment that can be found at a Mass. For example, at a clown Mass there is a great deal of negative stuff going on that a person will soak in. As a result, even if the person is able to dispose himself very well to receiving Grace, he’s still going to be getting all kinds of crazy and irreverent ideas about God, and so that’s probably going to harm his soul a great deal and render any Grace he may have received very ineffective practicallly speaking. It’s the same idea as if a person went to a Tridentine Mass but was preached an overtly heretical sermon: that person isn’t going to benefit from the Mass nearly so much as a person who attended a Tridentine Mass with a wonderful sermon. The negative effects of that sermon will just hurt the fellow’s soul.

A “clown mass” is an abomination. When was the last time one heard an overtly heretical sermon at a traditional mass?

The disposition a person has to Grace is *extremely *relevant. The purpose of Mass is the glorification of God and the sanctification of souls. If a person is better able to receive the Grace available at a Mass, that means that he is more greatly sanctified and that the Mass has effected it’s purpose better. The most reverential and beautiful Liturgy in the world would be utterly worthless if it did not lead to the sanctification of souls.

Again you are missing the point. When comparing the liturgies, the disposition of you or me or anyone else is irrelevant.

A good study of history will show that people left the Church not over the Mass, but over Humanae Vitai, and that, more importantly, the dissension already existed in the Church long before the 60s.

I don’t see any evidence that this common claim is true.

 

[SFD]

There was all kinds of dissidece present in the Church in the 1950s.

Yes, from the censured theologians who ran wild at Vatican II.

It was quiet at that time. Vatican II was used as an excuse for these dissidents to reveal themselves. They came to exist in the Church, however, while the Missal of Pius V was still in universal use in the Latin rite.

Do you even realise what you are saying here…Ratzinger was among the “dissidents”. He was pals with Cardinal Frings, Rahner, Kung, DeLubac, and all the rest. He was right with European Alliance…the “dissidents” as you call them.

The relevance is that the older son sinned in that he did not rejoice at the return of the younger son, but rather moped over his own desires. The traditionalist movement often utterly fails to rejoice in the conversion of souls to the Church, and rather complains about all that it has had to suffer. This is a grave, grave sin against charity. I have even had a traditionalist once suggest that it would be better that I not have found God and the Pauline Mass to never have been created than for the situation as it is now, a situation in which I have found God and salvation.

This is a really bad analogy. And please restate the bold part…I don’t understand what you are trying to say there.

Perhaps it is the traditionalists that have a weak understanding of the Church’s own teaching about her nature. I find more often than not that I know far more about the Church’s teaching than the traditionalists I deal with, and that Protestant converts like myself exhibit far greater obedience to traditional Catholic teaching than do traditionalists, a point which I will illustrate below.

Actually, I think you learned that the disciplines of the Church are protected from doctrinal error and then use that to say that the New Mass MUST be good. That’s your argument and you think it trumps all other facts…so you needn’t compare the two liturgies at all. You don’t think there’s any problem so we can’t really discuss anything…simply because you think there’s no problem.

It was the teaching of Pius VI, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX that the Church is nfallible in her discipline - which includes Liturgy - insofar as that the Church is protected by God from enforcing a discpline that is harmful to the Church and to the faith. You may try to judge the past 40 years and reject the Mass of Paul VI, but that is no different from a Protestant rejecting the Church because of his judgment of the Bible. The teaching of Holy Mother Church tells us that no Liturgy she proposes for the faithful can be harmful to them or to Her. Whatever our thoughts about what we see, we must submit our judgments to the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Holy Mother Church says, through three popes and the consensus of theologians prior to Vatican II, that it is not possible for the Church’s Liturgy to harm the faithful. I, a Protestant convert, choose to submit myself to that teaching, recognizing it as the will of the Spirit and the teaching of Holy Mother Church. If you truly embrace the tradition which you espouse, you will submit your own judgments to Her in this way as well.

And I sent you more sources for this very thing…I agree. I would caution you about the “will of the spirit”…if this “will” appears to contradict tradition…you may want to consider the source of the “spirit”.

SFD

 

[SFD]

And if He so choses to shake things up a bit through a Council of Cardinals and Bishops and a Pope that brings dramatic changes to the mass, it makes sense that He has done it well within the “normal process” and He has His reasons and we should gladly say Amen!

Look, If one can’t trust a Vatican Council and a Pope elected by normal means what makes one any different than Luther and Knox and Calvin?

What if appeared he “shook things up a bit” by allowing the Church to teach heresy? Would you just say AMEN!???

“Shaking things up” is the work of a revolutionary…a heretic. Men of tradition are the true reformers…not revolutionaries.

SFD

 

[Chuck_H]

What if appeared he “shook things up a bit” by allowing the Church to teach heresy? Would you just say AMEN!???

“Shaking things up” is the work of a revolutionary…a heretic. Men of tradition are the true reformers…not revolutionaries.

SFD

Sounds pretty Pharisaic to me. That damnable Nazarene is shaking things up something awful, we gotta crucify Him.

There is no heresy in the Pauline mass and if Traditionalists were the true reformers, you would still be kissing the feet of a king or sucking up to an duke.

 

[Lazerlike42]

You are comparing early liturgies with a completely new liturgy. There is little to be learned from this comparision. What “culture” was the Novus Ordo devised for? “Modern man” is not a new culture…is it?

Yes, it is. The modern west is a new culture that requires evangelization in a particular way. The west has changed more in the past 50 years alone than it did in the 2000 before that. Whereas the difference between 1500 and 1600 was relatively small in many ways, the difference between 1930 and 1970 was enourmous.

You misunderstand me here…I was merely saying that whatever “feeling” one gets is hardly relevant when comparing the liturgies. A “properly disposed” Catholic at an invalid mass gets no graces from that invalid mass…although he may recieve many graces due to his pious disposition.

That’s true. Now it would seem that you don’t consider the Pauline rite to be valid, otherwise this statement would not be of any import.

A “clown mass” is an abomination. When was the last time one heard an overtly heretical sermon at a traditional mass?

It’s happened, but that wasn’t my point. I was merely providing an example to illustrate the manner in which I meant that a clown Mass would effect a person. I did not want to present the impression that I was claiming the irreverance at the clown Mass would have a direct impact on the Grace received. The Grace received would be the Grace received. It is God’s Grace, and nothing we can do will lessen it’s impact. I was trying to convey the idea of the Grace being “offset” by the harm of the irreverance without presenting the mistaken impression that the irreverance could in some way have power over God’s Grace.

Again you are missing the point. When comparing the liturgies, the disposition of you or me or anyone else is irrelevant.

The disposition is entirely relevant. If two people are at two different valid Masses, then the person better disposed grows more sanctified by his attendance. Thus, if a Pauline Mass is valid, then those who are able to more readily dispose themselves at such a Mass will grow more in holiness, which is the purpose of the Mass.

I don’t see any evidence that this common claim is true.

The evidence is in all of the folks who were in the hierarchy of the Church at the time and have said it.

But that’s not the strongest proof. That would be merely an inductive proof - a probable proof. There existsa logically certain proof:

The fact is that the bishops and priests who implemented the Second Vatican Council were *overwhelmingly * those who had been in the Church prior to the Council, and certainly prior to the reform of the Liturgy. All of the phoney-baloney nonsense that was enacted was implemented by people that were priests and bishops in the 1950s, with a few exceptions here and there.

Now given the extrememly widespread nature of the problems following the Council, it’s impossible to claim anything other than that men already in the Church performed these implementations. It couldn’t have been that widespread a problem if it were only the new guys, especially given that the new guys would yet to have been bishops for several years.

Here is the what makes the proof logically certain:

You can choose to believe that the Council was a good Conuncil that was misimplemented, or you can choose to believe that it was an evil Council that damaged the faith. Either way the men who did it - either those who implemented the Council or those who participated in drawing up the documents - were responsible. You cannot *possibly *blame the *effects *of the Council for kooky priests and bishops that we ended up having, because it took kooky priests and bishops to cause those effects to happen.

In other words, either the Council was bad or the Council was misinterpreted. Either way, the men that did the evil were widespread throughout the Church prior to the Council. They were either widespread enough to implement it in an erroneous way all over the world, or they were widespread enough to vote the terrible documents to approval.

Logically speaking, any men that are to blame for the past 40 years had to have been in the hierarchy in the 1950s, *before *the Council was called.

Peace and God bless

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is a really bad analogy. And please restate the bold part…I don’t understand what you are trying to say there.

It’s a perfect analogy; explain how it is bad. The younger son was able to return home, and the older son, because he felt ignored, chose to complain about the situation rather than rejoice in the younger son’s return home.

The bolded part:

I once explained to a traditionalist that the Pauline rite of Mass helped me to find the Church. The Mass helped me see the truth, and one of the means to this was the vernacular. I went to several Masses with a friend of mine. I would never have gone if it was all in Latin. Now this would have been a fault on my part, but the faults on our part have never stopped God from reaching out to us. He became incarnate to bridge the gap left by our own fault. Thus, I see no problem with saying that the vernacular helped me come to find Christ. The traditionalist told me that it was too bad he and the other traditionalsits had to suffer through the Pauline Mass just so I and a few Protestants could come into the Church. In other words, it seemed as though I was being told it would have been better had the Liturgy never changed and I remained out of the Church, than for it to have changed and allow me to find my way in.

Actually, I think you learned that the disciplines of the Church are protected from doctrinal error and then use that to say that the New Mass MUST be good. That’s your argument and you think it trumps all other facts…so you needn’t compare the two liturgies at all. You don’t think there’s any problem so we can’t really discuss anything…simply because you think there’s no problem.

The disciplines of the Church are not protected from doctrinal error. They are protected from pastoral error. The Church cannot, for example, create a canon that requires all priests to be sterilized. This would be a sin and harmful to the faithful. The Church is not capable of creating a discipline - including Liturgies - that is harmful to the faithful or to the life of the Church. That is the teaching of popes and theologians prior to the Second Vatican Council.

And I sent you more sources for this very thing…I agree. I would caution you about the “will of the spirit”…if this “will” appears to contradict tradition…you may want to consider the source of the “spirit”.

As a faithful son of the Church, I recognize that if the Church appears to contradict tradition, it is not her but I that am in error. She cannot err and is indefectable. If the Church tells me that the sky is green and my eyes tell me it is blue, I will believe it is green. This is what we owe to the Church of God. We are fallible human beings, and our judgment can err. Her’s cannot, nor can she ever defect.

Peace and God bless

 

[pnewton]

Abbott has implied this, surely you won’t deny that? I’m sure he doesn’t hold the “papist” belief, but I try to make his implications more obvious.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have specified that no serious poster has said that. It is possible to hold the pope as a idol, if you give him worship due God alone, like the ability to do anything.

 

[Freshman88]

Why are you cross-examining me? It all none of your business. If you want to attend, then you have the address. You can make a two-fer out of it, visit the new Cathedral.

yeah, never asked you bud - go and reread. - you’ve never even stated that your coptic, thats kinda weird.

 

[Freshman88]

What? You don’t trust what I say. You have some nerve

what am I suppouse to trust, the absence of an answer?
Why don’t you give me an answer…