Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[SFD]

What a dumb question. Only God can change Divine Law.

The Pope, however, can change Ecclesiastical law, each and every jot and tittle.

But much of the law is divine…therefore there can really never be massive changes in this areas:

“Jesus Christ, the divine founder of the Church, could indeed have left many things to the decision of men in regard to the social organisation of the Church: nevertheless, in fact He did not so leave them, but He Himself willed to establish all things which regard the fundamental constitution and organisation of the Church in so far as it is a perfect society. Consequently the principal part of the public law is divine, containing the immutable and permanent laws concerning the nature of the church, her authority and teaching office … Examples of divine public law are: the statutes by which the Church is granted full and independent legislative, judicial, and coercive power in affairs which in any manner pertain to her end; also, the statutes which pertain to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, and the constitution of the sacred hierarchy; similarly, those by which the Church is granted the faculty, free and independent from any power, of acquiring, keeping and administering temporal goods in order to achieve ends proper to herself. Examples of human public law are: norms relative to the institution and rights of patriarchal sees; certain rights contained in concordats; certain norms concerning the government of the Church during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff.” (1)

(1) Cardinal Ottaviani,* Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici *[Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1958], p. 10-11, (citing Pope St. Pius X, constitution Vacante Sede Ap., 25 Dec. 1904.)

 

[SFD]

Sure theyre in seminaries, a place apparently you have never been.
For example, you might learn the Church’s stance on Limbo.
And also, that ALL undefined teachings of the Church can change.
Two things apparently you are ignorant of.
Get some new books, or a current one that you can quote to us.

So why are they different?

And I said ALL undefined teachings.

SFD

 

[dyspepsic]

.

The Archbishop is not the Pope. He was forewarned not to proceed, and he told the Vatican to stick it. He was wrong, and he was excommunicated, and he died in his excommunication.

No one is responsible to the Spirit and Jesus Christ as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Jesus will hold us to obedience to his Vicar.
Ecumenism was the reason for the Council, in fulfillment of Christ’s orders to us: ut unum sint.

If you argue otherwise, then the Pope should have listened to Luther. Luther had more arguments on his side than Lefebrve ever did. The Archbishop will not be blessed or canonized.

 

[Your_Abbott]

But much of the law is divine…therefore there can really never be massive changes in this areas:

There can be no changes in Divine Law.

There can be absolute and complete changes in ecclesiastical law, which is the point. Please don’t try to confuse the issue.

 

[Your_Abbott]

But much of the law is divine…therefore there can really never be massive changes in this areas:

Why are you wriggling? When you are wrong, you are wrong. Admit to it.

 

[mitch2007]

Ooh Derbingo, you have some sharp mind. You sure you’re not that mgr fella?

Your Abbott,

In the week or so that I have been following threads on this forum, I do not think I have read a single post by you that is not filled with bitterness and sarcasm. I would love to be proven wrong on this score, but it is clear you are a very unhappy person.

It seems you spend all, or much, of your time here, bashing those who prefer the Latin Mass. Now I can understand people criticising - even strongly - the SSPX, but that Latin Mass itself? I know the “rad trads” go overboard and you certainly get cranks in their ranks, but where doesn’t one find cranks? By all means criticise the SSPX, but our Holy Father has widened considerably permission to use the Extraordinary Form. Those who prefer this liturgy, are well within their rights to prefer it. No-one is forcing you to attend the Latin Mass. If you cannot fathom why people love it, so be it, say so if you must, as you have repeatedly done, it seems. Yes, there are extremists, cranks, schismatics, sv’s, you name it, who are in favour of the EF, but you get plenty of New Agers, feminists, cranks, modernists, dissidents, etc, who are all in favour of the OF. There are cranks everywhere. There is nothing wrong at all with loving the EF, seeking it out, attending it, etc, as long as one doesn’t reject the OF (the OF itself, it is legitimate to criticise abuses thereof!).

Why do you come across as so hate-filled and embittered?

Mitch

 

[Dioscorus]

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.

SFD

You’re a nobody? Such humility.

Remember: “Lex orandi, lex credendi”.

Are SSPX and SV people going to tell us there is some heresy in the liturgy. Go ahead, and tell us, I dare you.

 

[Dioscorus]

Mitch

Hey Mitch,

Let me come to the Abbot’s assistance. He never dissed the Sacrifice of the Mass whether in the vernacular or in Latin.
That is the point. The TLM lovers are dissing the revised Mass of participation that came about as a result of Vatican 2. They make fun of it and its exercise.

We have several currents here. We have people who are anti-Vatican 2, telling us that it was an unimportant Council, that nothing was defined there. They however refuse to accept the authority of the pope and bishops to seek reunion with our separated brothers - i.e. ecumenism.

As for the TLM, that was back in the 60’s. It was changed because it was a concoction: different pieces didn’t belong. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, the addition of prayers to St. Michael, the language - totally unintelligible to the laity.

The Mass needed to be changed. A participated Mass in our own language was absolutely needed. As for promotion of the TLM, where is that going. L.A. has three masses a week. I don’t know the square mileage of the Archdiocese, but it runs from Santa Barbara down south to San Pedro - several hundred miles.

No one is dissing the Sacrifice of the Mass. We have also the undercurrent of SSPX and SV people who’s agenda is to keep fighting with the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope to decide such things.

To them, we are not Catholics, some of them believe the popes from Vatican 2 were heretics. Outrageous, and I will defend the Holy See at all times.

Are you an SSPX person?

 

[GerardP]

Why do you come across as so hate-filled and embittered?

Mitch

It’s called being a “radical, extreme concilarist.”

 

[pnewton]

Hey Mitch,

Let me come to the Abbot’s assistance. He never dissed the Sacrifice of the Mass whether in the vernacular or in Latin.

You are listed as joining four days ago. Your statement is further evidence that you are the same person.

 

[Chuck_H]

It may take a while, just like St. Joan of Arc’s.
(removed to hone in on Joan of Arc statement)

I’m confused, how does this work, the excommunicated one sits at the gate of hell until forgiven or the excommunication is reversed? This was never covered in catechism class.

 

[GerardP]

I’m confused, how does this work, the excommunicated one sits at the gate of hell until forgiven or the excommunication is reversed? This was never covered in catechism class.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a pretty good article on excommunication. It’s a bit long but is a good read.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Excommunications are not always valid or just.

 

[Dioscorus]

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a pretty good article on excommunication. It’s a bit long but is a good read.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Excommunications are not always valid or just.

I am sure that if you go thru the history of the Church, you will find some excommunications were political in nature.

However, if you are thinking of SSPX, forget it. Those excommunications were laid on their backs, although automatic.

Excommunication puts someone outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. In the Gospels, it is similar to 'cast someone into the exterior darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Without repentance the person dies without the sacraments of the church, and is denied Christian burial. What happens in eternity, well, we don’t really know, but I prefer not to be subjected to such a mess.

Excuses don’t work with God, when we have to give an accounting. To say, 'well, Lord, I thought the Pope was wrong, and I was right, and though I knew I was being disobedient, I went ahead to do it." I just don’t want to be there.

 

[Dioscorus]

You are listed as joining four days ago. Your statement is further evidence that you are the same person.

Hey, newton, still getting hit with that apple? You talking to me?

I am the same person as who? If I were the same person, why didn’t I use that person’s name. I can’t sign in as another person. And, why would I? End of your evidence.

Answer the post, and stop chasing butterflies.

 

[I_Believe]

Hey, newton, still getting hit with that apple?

I am the same person as who? If I were the same person, why didn’t I use that person’s name. I can’t sign in as another person. End of your evidence.

Answer the post, and stop chasing butterflies.

See what happens when we suggest there are trolls and liberals here on the forum ?

 

[GerardP]

I am sure that if you go thru the history of the Church, you will find some excommunications were political in nature.

However, if you are thinking of SSPX, forget it. Those excommunications were laid on their backs, although automatic.

Hah! As if the persecution of LeFebvre wasn’t political.

Excommunication puts someone outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. In the Gospels, it is similar to 'cast someone into the exterior darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Invalid excommunications do no such thing.

Without repentance the person dies without the sacraments of the church, and is denied Christian burial. What happens in eternity, well, we don’t really know, but I prefer not to be subjected to such a mess.

Excuses don’t work with God, when we have to give an accounting. To say, 'well, Lord, I thought the Pope was wrong, and I was right, and though I knew I was being disobedient, I went ahead to do it." I just don’t want to be there.

And God will not be mocked by those who abuse the authority and power given to them. God won’t buy into a redefinition of “schism” or crocodile tears about LeFebvre and how much Rome did to ensure “unity.” If I had to pick, I would much rather face God in LeFebvre’s shoes than those of JPII and Paul VI.

 

[Derbingo]

Hah! As if the persecution of LeFebvre wasn’t political.

Invalid excommunications do no such thing.

And God will not be mocked by those who abuse the authority and power given to them. God won’t buy into a redefinition of “schism” or crocodile tears about LeFebvre and how much Rome did to ensure “unity.” If I had to pick, I would much rather face God in LeFebvre’s shoes than those of JPII and Paul VI.

Really, and you would prefer to be in Martin Luther’s shoes, too?

Remember:
“No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff”. Canon 333.3

 

[Fish_Eater]

Hey, newton, still getting hit with that apple? You talking to me?

I am the same person as who? If I were the same person, why didn’t I use that person’s name. ** I can’t sign in as another person. ** And, why would I? End of your evidence.

Answer the post, and stop chasing butterflies.

I just did sign in as another person. End of * your * evidence.

 

[GerardP]

Really, and you would prefer to be in Martin Luther’s shoes, too?

No. Martin Luther was a heretic, justly and validly excommunicated. The exact opposite of LeFebvre.

Remember:
“No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff”. Canon 333.3

That doesn’t mean that an appeal can’t be made to the Pontiff to reverse himself or his predecessor.