Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[Lazerlike42]

Your Abott, you don’t really know who’s on your side, do you? I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I am on your side in defending the Pauline Mass.

The Paunline Mass is the one that was promulgated after Vatican II. The Mass you said “served its time” is the Pian Mass.

Easy misunderstanding. Peace and God bless!

 

[Your_Abbott]

“

.

So, in your view, communion in the hand is going to lead to impiety? I don’t feel any more impious than you. You are talking about an incident. The Church didn’t bring this back in order to make people more un-holy. I don’t see any significance to communion on the tongue being more reverent. Communion in the hand was the preferred manner for Jesus and the Apostles for reception of the Eucharist.

Think of it that way, rather than the way you insist upon interpretating. It is the way the Apostles and disciples, and Christians for centuries received communion.

Tell us how the communion on the tongue developed as an essential rite in the Eucharistic service…

 

[Alexios]

The Church didn’t bring this back in order to make people more un-holy.

Why, praytell, did the Church bring back CITH? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

It is yet another of the many inorganic changes nefariously orchestrated in the past few decades.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Why, praytell, did the Church bring back CITH? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

It is yet another of the many inorganic changes nefariously orchestrated in the past few decades.

If the change from Communion on the tongue to Communion in the hand is inorganic, wouldn’t it also have been inorganic when Communion on the tongue was instituted in the first place? Both are a drastic change, insofar as the motions involved are concerned.

 

[bear06]

Why, praytell, did the Church bring back CITH? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

It is yet another of the many inorganic changes nefariously orchestrated in the past few decades.

If you claim that bringing back Communion in the hand is inorganic, wouldn’t you also have to say banning it was too since they’re two opposing actions. I’m not a fan of it but I think the argumentation is sometimes goofy.

 

[bear06]

If the change from Communion on the tongue to Communion in the hand is inorganic, wouldn’t it also have been inorganic when Communion on the tongue was instituted in the first place? Both are a drastic change, insofar as the motions involved are concerned.

I guess great minds think alike. I wish I had hit the post button first so I’d look more original.

 

[dyspepsic]

Your Abott, you don’t really know who’s on your side, do you? I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I am on your side in defending the Pauline Mass.

The Paunline Mass is the one that was promulgated after Vatican II. The Mass you said “served its time” is the Pian Mass.

Easy misunderstanding. Peace and God bless!

I make that mistake too. “Pauline” I connect to Trent for some reason, and my mind runs in that direction. No logic to it all.

 

[Dioscorus]

Why, praytell, did the Church bring back CITH? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

It is yet another of the many inorganic changes nefariously orchestrated in the past few decades.

Communion in the hand is the more ancient, traditional form of reception of the Eucharist. Communion on the tongue is a later development.

Liturgy in the language of the faithful is all more traditional. We got stuck with latin because Christians become more diversified. Latin became the universal language, but the more unintelligible tongue.

 

[stmaria]

=Your Abbott;3433022]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.

Mgrfin…I mean Your Abbott…I mean mgrfin… you just gave yourself away…how would you know that Pax Caritas was gone in February…didn’t you just join a few days ago?

 

[stmaria]

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.

All of the above. Communion in the hand, all vernacular mass, removal of communion rail, standing to receive communion,removal of the tabernacle, introducing popular music, priest facing the people, new words of consecration, removing the communion of saints, Michael the Archangel, St Peter and Paul from the liturgy all were changes made by the protestants
reformers Zwingli, Luther, Cranmer, Calvin. .

 

[SFD]

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

On the contrary…Chuck. You side WITH THE DOUAY BIBLE and THE OFFICIAL COMMENTARY CONTAINED THERIN…Not with me. I am nobody.

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.

Revelation ENDED with the death of the last apostle. The Church merely protects and further EXPLAINS revealed doctrine.

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.

That’s why your opinions on established Catholic are worthless…learn from the official teachers…and sound Catholic sources.

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.

The theology of the Novus Ordo Missae is different…take a look at the worship of the Trinity in the two rites…take a good hard look.

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.

No.

Isn’t it possible that He is in charge and moved among the VII Church leaders to go in this direction?

No.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

=Your Abbott;3433058]

Tell us how the communion on the tongue developed as an essential rite in the Eucharistic service…

Memoriale Domini-Pope Paul VI
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

“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.”

 

[stmaria]

If the change from Communion on the tongue to Communion in the hand is inorganic, wouldn’t it also have been inorganic when Communion on the tongue was instituted in the first place? Both are a drastic change, insofar as the motions involved are concerned.

The change was gradual. As the faithful developed a deeper understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery and greater reverence, they began receiving on the tongue.

Memoriale Domini- Pope Paul VI
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

"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.

 

[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.

Are you comparing Our Blessed Lord to Luther and Calvin? That is blasphemous. Retract it.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

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.

So why was Pope Paul so worried that communion in the hand might be “dangerous” for the faithful. If a discipline in and of itself cannot lead to impiety why worry?

Pope Paul had Father Bugnini send a letter to those Bishops where he had allowed an indult for communion in the hand.

“His Holiness thinks the Bishops should be reminded of their responsibility…and also to control the indiscriminate spread of this practice, which in itself is not contrary to doctrine but is nonetheless debatable and dangerous…”-Reform of the Liturgy by Annibale Bugnini How can a discipline approved by the Pope be “debatable and dangerous?”

Because of protests from conservative bishops Pope Paul ordered Father Bugnini to “temporarily suspend the publication and implementation of the indult”
It was decided that a letter would be sent out to all the presidents of episcopal conferences asking for their (name removed by moderator)ut on communion in the hand.
Part of the letter says, “this difficult situation calls for serious reflection…it is necessary to anticipate what the effects of such a **change of discipline **will be: a] on priests and ministers of communion , b] on the faithful, [c] on the way in which the bread is made [it will have to be denser in order to prevent its slipping from the hand as easily and also to prevent as far as possible, the breaking off of fragments] [d] on material changes in the churches the possible removal of communion rails}"

Why was Pope Paul worried that this “change in discipline” might cause problems if discipline in and of itself is infallible and cannot lead to impiety?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Why was Pope Paul worried that this “change in discipline” might cause problems if discipline in and of itself is infallible and cannot lead to impiety?

That’s really a non-sequiter. The same argument can be made about things which nobody would even question the infallibility of. For example, Pius XII took up a study of the Assumption before defining it, and Pius IX did the same with the Immaculate Conception. The Council of Trent spent a lot of time studying and debating about the various issues that it defined.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t just work in some altogether mystical way. He works through the ordinary human means of behavior, such as, for instance, writing epistles to people. Even issues that are infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit are studied. When someone fails to do so, they end up like Sixtus VI. :nope:

 

[GerardP]

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.

Here’s an excerpt…

in her sacred laws imposed on all;

…By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church.

[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.
.

Read your own posts and avoid the double negatives!

And the AIDS comment is just goofy.

No. It’s quite apt. Saying it is goofy is just assinine.

 

[Chuck_H]

On the contrary…Chuck. You side WITH THE DOUAY BIBLE and THE OFFICIAL COMMENTARY CONTAINED THERIN…Not with me. I am nobody.

Revelation ENDED with the death of the last apostle. The Church merely protects and further EXPLAINS revealed doctrine.

That’s why your opinions on established Catholic are worthless…learn from the official teachers…and sound Catholic sources.

The theology of the Novus Ordo Missae is different…take a look at the worship of the Trinity in the two rites…take a good hard look.

No.

No.

SFD

Questions and statements in here have led me to do some serious Googling and here is what I found. It is too long to ever copy and publish here but I would suggest that both sides take a good long hard look at this seriously documented and apologetic write up. The various Church documents and Council statements make this a must read for those that allow for a scholarly historical look at Church rites and practices.

I myself will argue no more based on this work since the author is concise and has done an exhaustive and therefore probably correct summation of the validity and truth of the Pauline mass and its rightful place in the historical rites of the mass of the Roman Catholic Church. While this work does not have the power of a Papal pronouncement it is documented proof that Paul VI both had the power and the right to make the changes he did and that to question those changes or call for their negation is a rejection of what the Church has decided.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

Peace be with you all.

 

[SFD]

Questions and statements in here have led me to do some serious Googling and here is what I found. It is too long to ever copy and publish here but I would suggest that both sides take a good long hard look at this seriously documented and apologetic write up. The various Church documents and Council statements make this a must read for those that allow for a scholarly historical look at Church rites and practices.

I myself will argue no more based on this work since the author is concise and has done an exhaustive and therefore probably correct summation of the validity and truth of the Pauline mass and its rightful place in the historical rites of the mass of the Roman Catholic Church. While this work does not have the power of a Papal pronouncement it is documented proof that Paul VI both had the power and the right to make the changes he did and that to question those changes or call for their negation is a rejection of what the Church has decided.

Peace be with you all.

So you studied the issue by doing a few moments of “serious googling” and then read this and concluded that is was “documented proof”? Do you think that your “serious googling” was sufficient?

Btw, the fact that the Pope has the power to change disciplines and the liturgy…that is not disputed.

SFD

 

[bear06]

Read your own posts and avoid the double negatives!

Maybe you should read my posts:

Hmmm…It’s interesting that only the last two entries mention the entire Church and these two didn’t actually come from Church documents

Geez, Gerard. A little touchy today? Goofy is a tad bit more considerate than your alternative. You’re still off with the analogy.