Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[Chuck_H]

Lazerlike,

You better send a letter to Archbishop, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to let him know that he is in serious error by claiming that communion in the hand “has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species…”.

He said that about a discipline approved by Rome.

The good archbishop has a right to his opinion and in fact I will give him credit where he states that it may have been put into practice without due diligence on the part of some diocese and priests. However he makes an immense and possibly false jump from problems in practice to bad practice. Historically God has shown a preference to put Himself into the hands of His chosen and to trust them. The practice of Eucharist in the hand fits this historical record and is compatible with the sayings and actions of Jesus while He was in his active earthly ministry. While it is admitted that man is capable and therefore known to dishonor that trust it remains nonetheless a preference that God has shone to be a successful practice.

 

[stmaria]

The good archbishop has a right to his opinion and in fact I will give him credit where he states that it may have been put into practice without due diligence on the part of some diocese and priests. However he makes an immense and possibly false jump from problems in practice to bad practice.

Historically God has shown a preference to put Himself into the hands of His chosen and to trust them. The practice of Eucharist in the hand fits this historical record and is compatible with the sayings and actions of Jesus while He was in his active earthly ministry

So why did Pope Paul VI say the following?
Memoriale Domini
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

"Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced **without prior approval **having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage **once allowed **the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. **Later, with a deepening understanding **of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, **there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.**This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, **not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially **because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

 

[GerardP]

First, the discipline was not approved by Rome for the entire Latin rite, a very important disctintion.  Reverse Ecclesial Infallibility has nothing to do with indults granted to a diocese here or a bishop's conference there.

Infallibility doesn’t “kick in” so to speak when something is approved for the entire Latin Rite. It must be universal. So, it must include all rites and Churches within the Catholic Church.

The idea that the Church is protected from implementing harmful disciplines is akin to saying that no one dies from AIDS.

It’s true, because people don’t die from AIDS. They die from other diseases that are brought on as a result of AIDS, but it doesn’t do any good and it doesn’t mean that AIDS isn’t a dangerous thing.

 

[bear06]

The thing people don’t understand is that disciplines are not immutable. If they were immutable, we would never change a thing. There wouldn’t have been a Tridentine Mass to begin with. As the Catholic Encyclopedia shows (I would quote but New Advent seems to be down this morning ), this would be burdensome to the Faith. The simple fact that is often overlooked is that all disciplines are not proper for all times which is why we have change in the Church. While the disciplines in an of themselves cannot bring souls to impiety (Stmaria this is pre-Vatican II teaching which has been quoted from many sources so I find it hard that you can disagree with that) society can change and the discipline might no longer be prudent. That is not the fault of the discipline. Society can most definitley lead the faithful to impiety.

 

[GerardP]

Historically God has shown a preference to put Himself into the hands of His chosen and to trust them.

He has also allowed him to be delivered into the hands of his enemies.

 

[bear06]

Infallibility doesn’t “kick in” so to speak when something is approved for the entire Latin Rite. It must be universal. So, it must include all rites and Churches within the Catholic Church.

The idea that the Church is protected from implementing harmful disciplines is akin to saying that no one dies from AIDS.

Hmmm…It’s interesting that only the last two entries mention the entire Church and these two didn’t actually come from Church documents. The Church documents quoted don’t specify anything about universal disciplines. In fact, Trent mentions things that are in no way universal. So I’d actually have to say that it doesn’t appear that universality has nothing to do with it.

In the 18th century, Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if 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,–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.

(Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 78, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Similarly, Pope Gregory XVI wrote:

“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). … do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).

The Council of Trent declared:

“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.).

Furthermore, Pope Pius IX wrote:

“It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” (Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):“

"Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Also, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

I also refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article mentioned above, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.

Here’s an excerpt…

[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

And the AIDS comment is just goofy.

 

[SFD]

SFD:

Why don’t you explain some of those changes that we needed to adapt and innovate for so we could “reach out” to those “new civilizations”?

What were the big changes from 1930 to 1970?

War. WWII, Korea, Vietnam. Before your time, I guess.

Dioscorsus,

Those are EVENTS…not changes. What were the changes?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Infallibility doesn’t “kick in” so to speak when something is approved for the entire Latin Rite. It must be universal. So, it must include all rites and Churches within the Catholic Church.

What is your source for this? Who teaches this?

The idea that the Church is protected from implementing harmful disciplines is akin to saying that no one dies from AIDS.

No, it is the doctrine of the Church. As long as we understand what “harmful” means…it means harmful in a moral sense. The practical judgment of a discipline can be quite bad…there is no guarantee that the practical judgment is prudent. I’d quote some theology manuals on this but I know you don’t accept them.

It’s true, because people don’t die from AIDS. They die from other diseases that are brought on as a result of AIDS, but it doesn’t do any good and it doesn’t mean that AIDS isn’t a dangerous thing

It’s a bad analogy. The Church cannot lead anyone to spiritual death.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

“

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” ( Council of Trent Session XXII, canon 7,]

Bearo6, The Council of Trent was called to answer the reformers like Zwingli and Luther who claimed that ceremonies, vestments and outward signs were incentives of impiety. Zwingli introduced communion in the hand and forbade kneeling which he considered unnecesary.
Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034
“In his reform Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members. It was no longer necessary for each believer to come and kneel at the altar, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration.”

Luther likewise did not see the Mass as a sacrifice

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-02b.html
THE SECOND PART
Article II: Of the Mass.
“That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious… For it is but a pure invention of men, and has not been commanded by God;… But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve ?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected.”

The Council of Trent had to refute the reformers. Yet the very very things introduced by the reformers Zwingli, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, have been introduced into the New Mass. Maybe the reformers were right all along . Maybe all of the reforms introduce by Zwingli and Luther should have been accepted by the Council of Trent.

 

[SFD]

Of course, Jesus was a religious revolutionary. He came to fulfill the Law. Eventually with his Crucifixion and death, he abrogated the Old Law, and gave us a New Covenant. He gave us two new commandments. He instituted a new sacrifice, and a new rite of initiation, baptism. He formed a new Church which destroyed the old religion. He preached forgiveness for all manking, which he redeemed with his blood, not just the Jews, not just the Samaritans.

I know SFD would call that the dumbest statement he ever heard if someone else made it. It is incomprehendible for him to say that Jesus wasn’t a revolutionary.

He came to fulfill the law. He did not come to subvert the law. A revolutionary is a subversive…look it up.

Btw, I remember Bp. Fulton Sheen describing how Jesus was not a revolutionary…it was Barabbas who was the revolutionary…a subverter and a criminal. I’ll see if I can find the reference.

Also, God is infinite…he has no beginning and no end. How could He be a “revolutionary” when it comes to truth…He is truth. He always was Truth. He will always be Truth.

SFD

 

[Your_Abbott]

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.
.

Oh, hogwash. The Pauline Mass was formed as a result of the damage that was done to the Sacrifice of the Mass as part of the Protestant Reformation.

The Pauline Mass served its purpose. The Church woke up in the 20th Century with a liturgy that was ‘out of its time’, that no one understood, and did not represent their hopes and aspirations, their knowledge of the priesthood of the laity.

Along came Vatican 2, and with that behind it, the Church reorganized the liturgy. We traded something unintelligible for something we could participate in. The Mass of Participation is the answer to reviving the Pauline liturgy.

 

[Your_Abbott]

He came to fulfill the law. He did not come to subvert the law. A revolutionary is a subversive…look it up.

SFD

I did look it up. He said He was a revolutionary.

Luke 12: 51ff: “Think ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you no; but separation. For there will be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law.”

 

[Chuck_H]

He came to fulfill the law. He did not come to subvert the law. A revolutionary is a subversive…look it up.

Btw, I remember Bp. Fulton Sheen describing how Jesus was not a revolutionary…it was Barabbas who was the revolutionary…a subverter and a criminal. I’ll see if I can find the reference.

Also, God is infinite…he has no beginning and no end. How could He be a “revolutionary” when it comes to truth…He is truth. He always was Truth. He will always be Truth.

SFD

Main Entry: 1rev·o·lu·tion·ary
Function: adjective

1 a: of, relating to, or constituting a revolution b: tending to or promoting revolution c: constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change 2capitalized : of or relating to the American Revolution or to the period in which it occurred

 

[SFD]

I did look it up. He said He was a revolutionary.

Luke 12: 51ff: “Think ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you no; but separation. For there will be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law.”

Is Christ calling us to revolution here? Or merely stating the human conflict that will arise between those who follow Him and those who do not?

34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

35 “I came to set a man at variance”… Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him.

36 And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. 40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

17 “To fulfill”… By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies; and perfecting all that was imperfect.

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Btw, for all those who care to reference Catholic sources…all quotes and footnotes referenced in the above post come from:

DRBO.ORG
Douay-Rheims Bible Online

SFD

 

[Chuck_H]

I side with you on the idea of causing conflict. He was definitely speaking of those that would accept or argue against His teachings.

As for the law, you notice he says "One who breaks even the least of these commandments. Key word. God’s law is sacrosanct and inviolable.
His revolution was how we would relate to God from His time on. The laws of sacrifice, the goats, sheep and doves were no more. His Sacrifice was eternal so the Laws of sacrifice to the Israelites ceased to exist. To the Israelites God was Yaweh, Jesus offered a new relationship-Abba. To those who believed in Him He was brother. There are so many things that Jesus changed that He is still full mystery slowly becoming revealed even after 2000 years and we still haven’t seen the complete unfolding of the mystery. The fundamentals of the mystery were there all along but Jesus is still mystery like the Trinity.

If the new mass order retains Jesus and His mystery then it follows that He will be in it. All that has been posted here are opinions. We shape our opinions through the lens of our own prides, our own prejudices, our own fears, and our own personal beliefs about what is seemly and what is not. If I used these to be against the Tridentine mass then maybe I should have looked at it harder and found what was true to hold onto. If you use these against Novus Ordum then maybe you should look harder and find what is true to hold onto.

When I say that the Holy Spirit can shake things up I am thinking of a God Who walks among His people and sees their hearts and hears their thoughts. Isn’t it possible that He dictated these changes. Isn’t it possible that He is in charge and moved among the VII Church leaders to go in this direction?

 

[bear06]

“

Bearo6, The Council of Trent was called to answer the reformers like Zwingli and Luther who claimed that ceremonies, vestments and outward signs were incentives of impiety. Zwingli introduced communion in the hand and forbade kneeling which he considered unnecesary.
Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034
“In his reform Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members. It was no longer necessary for each believer to come and kneel at the altar, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration.”

Luther likewise did not see the Mass as a sacrifice

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-02b.html
THE SECOND PART
Article II: Of the Mass.
“That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious… For it is but a pure invention of men, and has not been commanded by God;… But since the Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels), by which one attempts to reconcile himself and others to God, and to obtain and merit the remission of sins and grace (for thus the Mass is observed when it is observed at the very best; otherwise what purpose would it serve ?), for this very reason it must and should [certainly] be condemned and rejected.”

The Council of Trent had to refute the reformers. Yet the very very things introduced by the reformers Zwingli, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, have been introduced into the New Mass. Maybe the reformers were right all along . Maybe all of the reforms introduce by Zwingli and Luther should have been accepted by the Council of Trent.

This still doesn’t undermine the lack of universality between the Church’s vestments, outward signs, etc. Different rites have differences in these. And, none of the other documents sourced mention universality as necessary to carry the weight of negative infallibility. It’s probably another reason a negative infallibility is attached to disciplines.

 

[Your_Abbott]

Is Christ calling us to revolution here? Or merely stating the human conflict that will arise between those who follow Him and those who do not?

SFD

Human conflict that arises from followers and those who do not…
so, you are admitting that Jesus was a revolutionary. The Old religion was dissed.

Luther was a revolutionary, so was Calvin.

 

[Your_Abbott]

Dioscorsus,

Those are EVENTS…not changes. What were the changes?

SFD

Today’s a big day. All the extremists are out on this thread. SFD, St.Maria, Pax and Caritas (welcome back - they gave you February off), Gerard, etc.

All for Communion in the hand? Talk about issues to fight over. A meaningless, incidental accident to the Sacrifice of the Mass.

BTW the event of WWII caused the death of 30 million people. Event or change…it really doesn’t matter, except to the philosophers.

So…let’s get back to the real issue…communion in the hand!!!

 

[Chuck_H]

“

(taken out for space)

The Council of Trent had to refute the reformers. Yet the very very things introduced by the reformers Zwingli, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin, have been introduced into the New Mass. Maybe the reformers were right all along . Maybe all of the reforms introduce by Zwingli and Luther should have been accepted by the Council of Trent.

I am confused by what “very things” have been introduced? Vernacular? Communion in the hand? Can you be more specific? We still have the confession of sin and weakness, the readings, the offertory, the sacrifice and transubstantiation, the communion, the after prayers the Our Father. What has been introduced that is weird or protestant? I have read the claims of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and don’t see anything other than what is written above. Either Father or the EM holds up the host or the chalice and claims The body/blood of Christ to which I affirm amen. I simply do not see what is so protestant.