Archbishop Lefebvre

[itsjustdave1988]

You still have not answered either question…

And you still haven’t answered mine. You are the one posing the question, but refuse to describe the context of the first question? What do you think he erroneously taught? That too is a simple question. You implied that the Pope was wrong in teaching such a thing. Why can’t you back up your implication with context? Why refuse to do so? Rarely do theological discussions have value with “yes or no” responses. The details of these discussion should always include the context, or else you aren’t really attempting to understand what the pope had to teach.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…my first question had some “wiggle room”

Then why even bring it up? If you can’t argue the case against John Paul II, then it seems disingenuous, much like when the monothetilist cited Honorius’ letter contrary to his authentic meaning. It doesn’t appear that the pope’s words in the context of all his teachings means anything contrary to Catholic dogma.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

And you still haven’t answered mine. You are the one posing the question, but refuse to describe the context of the first question? What do you think he erroneously taught? That too is a simple question.

I didn’t say it was erroneous, I simply asked if you accepted it. I fully realize that in order to get out of answering the question you would like for me to say something that you can attack. That way you can attack what you call my “interpretation” and thereby avoid answering the question.

I never said I disagreed with John Paul II on those points. I simply asked if you agreed with him. You said you would answer but, as I predicted, so far you have not.

I’ll post the questions again - that you said you could answer. Remember that? You said “I can answer the questions”. Therefore, please do. Here’s the questions one more time:

1.) “the old covenant has never been revoked by God”;

2.) that an “mass” with no words of consecration is valid?

If you claim that you cannot answer the question without the context, then simply look at the documents in question and determine the context. If I give the context you will disagree and divert the conversation to my “interpretation” of the contect, without ever answering the questions. I’ve seen it happen over and over again.

If you don’t want to answer the question simply explain why and I will let you off the hook.

But I need to warn you, Sure and Bear06 are hoping and praying that you can come up with something, and are getting very nervous watching you bob and weave.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

:yawn: :yawn:

 

[JReducation]

Then why won’t you answer my question? It is a very simple question:

Do you agree with John Paul II that 1.) “the old covenant has never been revoked by God”, and 2.) that an “mass” with no words of consecration is valid?

Where and when did you see John Paul II say that you can have a celebration of the Eucharist without the words of consecration? Was this an official declaration or John Paul II the philosopher sharing some thoughts?

By the way he was a PhD in philosophy, so it would not surprise me that he would think like any other philosopher. Even Popes are allowed to think and speculate.

What they decree is different from their scholarly persuits.

Look at Benedict XVI. He is both a PhD in theology and a PhD in philosophy. Throuhgout his life he has written much and speculated on much. However, not everything that he wrote about or speculated about has become an official church teaching.

Let’s keep the individual’s private and personal reflections separate from official declarations.

I want to see an official decree that says that we can celebrate the liturgy of the eucharist without consecraton.

As to the OT covenant, Jesus said that he had not come to abolish it, but fulfill it. Was he wrong?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I didn’t say it was erroneous, I simply asked if you accepted it. I fully realize that in order to get out of answering the question you would like for me to say something that you can attack.

Another faulty assumption on your part. In order to agree or disagree with the quote from John Paul II, I need to understand the context of his statement. I don’t have the context. Furthermore, it appears you don’t have the context either, or if you do, you refuse to share it for some bizarre reason.

Without the context of his statement, all I can say is that if what John Paul II is saying about the old Covenant not being revoked is the same thing he promulgated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then I agree with it.

CCC 121 states, “The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value [92], for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

Footnote 92 of this paragraph gives us further context with regard to intent of this teaching. It cites Dei Verbum, no. 14, which states:

In carefully planning and preparing the salvation of the whole human race the God of infinite love, by a special dispensation, chose for Himself a people to whom He would entrust His promises. First He entered into a covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel (see Ex. 24:8). To this people which He had acquired for Himself, He so manifested Himself through words and deeds as the one true and living God that Israel came to know by experience the ways of God with men. Then too, when God Himself spoke to them through the mouth of the prophets, Israel daily gained a deeper and clearer understanding of His ways and made them more widely known among the nations (see Ps. 21:29; 95:1-3; Is. 2:1-5; Jer. 3:17). The plan of salvation foretold by the sacred authors, recounted and explained by them, is found as the true word of God in the books of the Old Testament: these books, therefore, written under divine inspiration, remain permanently valuable. “For all that was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).

Dei Verbum, 14]

A see nothing contrary to Catholic tradition it the above teaching.

However, if by the above, we are supposed to conclude that Jews do not need to be evangelized as some have erroneously concluded, then I don’t agree.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Where and when did you see John Paul II say that you can have a celebration of the Eucharist without the words of consecration? Was this an official declaration or John Paul II the philosopher sharing some thoughts?

An official document signed by John Paul II himself. But I do have to say that I am very happy that you are shocked by it.

By the way he was a PhD in philosophy, so it would not surprise me that he would think like any other philosopher. Even Popes are allowed to think and speculate. What they decree is different from their scholarly persuits.

This was an official document signed by John Paul II, certain to go down in history and never be forgotten… along with the Bellamand Agreement.

Look at Benedict XVI. He is both a PhD in theology and a PhD in philosophy. Throuhgout his life he has written much and speculated on much. However, not everything that he wrote about or speculated about has become an official church teaching.

Very true. But the document in question was an official act of John Paul II acting in the capacity as Pope. Now maybe you can understand why Dave won’t touch this with a 10’ pole.

As to the OT covenant, Jesus said that he had not come to abolish it, but fulfill it. Was he wrong?

No, he was right, but it is a teaching of the Church Church that the old covenant was replaced by the new and is now null and void. Every Catholic knew this well before John Paul II the great became Pope.

Pope Pius XII, 1943: "29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis Christi vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html)

This is the teaching of the Church as definitively taught at the Council of Florence. The teachings of the Church do not change. Therefore, be not deceived by the wolves who pretend that it does. And if you happen to have been misled on this point, thank the Good God that the truth has been made known to you while there is still time to correct your thinking. Just be sure to beware in the future.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Another faulty assumption on your part. In order to agree or disagree with the quote from John Paul II, I need to understand the context of his statement. I don’t have the context. Furthermore, it appears you don’t have the context either, or if you do, you refuse to share it for some bizarre reason.

Without the context of his statement, all I can say is that if what John Paul II is saying about the old Covenant not being revoked is the same thing he promulgated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then I agree with it.

CCC 121 states, “The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value [92], for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

Footnote 92 of this paragraph gives us further context with regard to intent of this teaching. It cites Dei Verbum, no. 14, which states:

A see nothing contrary to Catholic tradition it the above teaching.

However, if by the above, we are supposed to conclude that Jews do not need to be evangelized as some have erroneously concluded, then I don’t agree.

Thank you for answering the first question. I accept your answer. Now please answer the second.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thank you for answering the first question. I accept your answer. Now please answer the second.

Sure…let me dig up the Holy See’s agreement so that I can support my answer without throwing everyone into a rant.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Sure…let me dig up the Holy See’s agreement so that I can support my answer without throwing everyone into a rant.

I’ll get you started. Here’s a link to the document as well as one paragraph: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative words of consecration]. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I’ll also provide the teaching of the Church so we can contrast it with the document approved by John Paul II the great. The following can be found in any catechism that discussing this topic in detail. I will quote from the council of Florence:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “Exultate Deo”: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 695)

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”

This is the teaching of the Church that we are all well aware of. The FORM is completely missing from the “mass” that John Paul II approved. Let’s see how many of us will hold to what the Church teaches when they find that John Paul II signed a document to the contrary.

 

[latinmass]

Let’s get to basics for a moment. If anyone chose to worship and practice their faith as the SSPX did when they had the approval of Rome, would this be acceptable today?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Let’s get to basics for a moment. If anyone chose to worship and practice their faith as the SSPX did when they had the approval of Rome, would this be acceptable today?

 

[JReducation]

An official document signed by John Paul II himself. But I do have to say that I am very happy that you are shocked by it.

This was an official document signed by John Paul II, certain to go down in history and never be forgotten… along with the Bellamand Agreement.

Which is the documen? I want to see it and read the context. Becaue the Ordo of the mass is very clear on this.

No, he was right, but it is a teaching of the Church Church that the old covenant was replaced by the new and is now null and void. Every Catholic knew this well before John Paul II the great became Pope.

Pope Pius XII, 1943: "29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis Christi vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html)

This is the teaching of the Church as definitively taught at the Council of Florence. The teachings of the Church do not change. Therefore, be not deceived by the wolves who pretend that it does. And if you happen to have been misled on this point, thank the Good God that the truth has been made known to you while there is still time to correct your thinking. Just be sure to beware in the future.

There is nothing in this quote or in John Paul’s statement that are in conflict. You’re taking his statement out of context. His statement fits into this declaration. The Mosaic Law is not longer necessary, because of the Paschal Mystery.

John Paul did not imply that the Mosaic Law was still necessary. He was speaking about the Covenant. The covenant that God made with is people is still in force, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” That has not changed. That is the essence of the covenant in the Old Testament.

The old rituals such as fasting on the Sabbath and the old purification rights, eating kosher, etc, are no longer binding. John Paul does not say they are.

He is speaking of the Covenant, not the rules (Law).

In fact, we still maintain elements of the Old Covenant in our liturgy.

Why read a passage from the OT during mass if it’s not longer relevant to us?

Why tie in the mass with the Passover celebrated by Moses and the Israelites if that’s no longer relevant to us?

Let’s take it one step further.

You want your old mass back, right?

I guess you also want the old Roman vestments worn by pagans of the first century, which continue to be worn by priests at mass.

You want the stole which was introduced into worship by the Jews as a sign of the high priests and which Jews still wear at prayer to this day.

You want the Latin back and abolish the modern languages from the liturgy. Why not Aramaic? Jesus did not celebrate the Last Supper in Latin. He probably didn’t speak Latin. It was the language of Rome not Israel.

You want the alter facing the wall again. Why not the screen that was traditionally placed before the altar? In fact, the Eastern Uniate Churches still have it, as does the Orthodox church.

You want the Tridentine mass back, but what about the Uniate Christians, they are in communion with Rome? Should they move away from their rites and adopt the Tridentine rite?

You want the old disciplines back, what about celibacy? That does not go back to the early church. Nor is it a universal discipline of the Catholic Church. How do we deal with that? Should we make it optional as it was optional during the first several centuries of the Christian church and remains optional among the Uniate Churches who are in communion with Rome?

You need to open your eyes and realize that there are many things that have changed over the centuries and that the Council of Trent was.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Which is the documen? I want to see it and read the context. Becaue the Ordo of the mass is very clear on this.

It is the last post on the previous page.

There is nothing in this quote or in John Paul’s statement that are in conflict. You’re taking his statement out of context. His statement fits into this declaration. The Mosaic Law is not longer necessary, because of the Paschal Mystery.

John Paul did not imply that the Mosaic Law was still necessary. He was speaking about the Covenant. The covenant that God made with is people is still in force, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” That has not changed. That is the essence of the covenant in the Old Testament.

I’m not sure what you mean by “necessary”. The Old Covenant used to justify those who practiced it, but it no longer does. It is null and void and as such can no longer justify, or “save”. For example, circumcision removed original sin during the days of the Old covenant. It no longer does. Circumcumcision has lost its efficacy and has been replaced by Baptism.

The old rituals such as fasting on the Sabbath and the old purification rights, eating kosher, etc, are no longer binding. John Paul does not say they are.

We are not only dealing with the negative (what is binding), but the possitive (what justifies). The reason the ceremonial laws and dietaries laws of the Old Covenant are no longer binding is because it is null and void. And since it is null and void it will not longer justify.

If I addressed each of the following points you raised it would take too long. The point is, the old Covenant is null and void which means it can no longer justify the soul. It used to be able to, but not any more.

 

[Four_Marks]

Which is the documen? I want to see it and read the context. Becaue the Ordo of the mass is very clear on this.

You need to open your eyes and realize that there are many things that have changed over the centuries and that the Council of Trent was.

What exactly are you suggesting that the Church has a right to change? Be specific please.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, the pone rang and I didn’t finish my final idea in my last post.

I was tyring to say that the Council of Trent was one of many councils.

We have to take the entire history of salvation as a whole.

Finally, we must also remember our vocation to love. Character assasination as do those who accuse John Paul II and other popes of being heretics is a serious violation of charity, when there is no support of such claims.

The College of Bishops does not support such claims, have they questioned the Holy Father’s fidelity to the truth.

Let’s not forget that the church has built-in safeguards for such problems.

I hope this helps just a little.

Peace!

 

[pnewton]

If I may interject:

After less than one day away, this thread has exploded by several pages. I just finished reading and I am reminded of something a trial lawyer told me. If you have the law on your side, you argue the law. If you have facts on your side, you argue the facts. If you have neither, you muddy the waters.

The facts of the ordination are not really in question. Canon Law is clear on the matter of ordaining bishops without authority. HOWEVER, I have never seen such a mudding of the waters as today has brought. The defense of Lefebvre has turned to an attack of John Paul II, questions about Mass, the OT covenant, Bellarmine, Bishop Bruskewitz and Chaput, and sedevacantism. Oh my goodness, what a mess.

Does anyone even remember how simple the original quesiton was? Of course one can think highly of AB Lefebvre and still be a good Catholic. But the facts of his excommunication are not really much of an issue for all except a handful, many of who don’t even believe that JP II was a real pope.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pax et Caritas,

Thanks for providing the links I was looking for.

With regard to the Congregation’s conclusion “this Anaphora can be considered valid.” I disagree that the Anaphora is valid. I believe it lacks the necessary “form” to be valid. Yet, this document is an exercise of the governing authority of the Church, not the Church’s magisterial authority. It maintains (incorrectly in my view) that Catholics “can” consider this Anaphora to be valid. As I understand it, this document states that Catholics “may” do so, but doesn’t say we “must” do so.

Given my personal opinion above, I am also reminded by what my Baltimore Catechism, no. 4 says with regard to matters which are not ex cathedra papal decisions regarding politics or “other things”: “We should not set up our limited knowledge and experience against [the Roman Pontiff], even if we think that we know better than he does…for we are not sure that we do.”

While I’m a post-graduate student of Catholic theology, I have not studied ancient Eastern liturgy, so I don’t know if this ancient anaphora has ever been accepted as valid by any of the pre-Nicene fathers. So, I don’t consider the pope as demanding my assent on this matter. While I respect the Holy See’s vastly superior expertise on this issue, for now I disagree with their non-binding, non-immutable conclusion.

Now, how does this compare to what Lefebvre did? Universal canon law IS BINDING, and infallible. What he did was disobey the positive demand of his lawful superior. Whether or not he thought that demand was just, it was NOT contrary to dogma or universal canon law, and therefore he did not meet the conditions which St. Thomas Aquinas describes as licit for disobedience to one’s lawful superior.

 

[JReducation]

What exactly are you suggesting that the Church has a right to change? Be specific please.

It’s more a matter of fact, than right. The Church has changed.

If Peter rose from the dead and walked into a Tridentine mass who would not recognize it.

There were no such communities as religoius orders in the early church, we have thousands today.

There was no Canon Law, today it exists.

The language of the liturgy in its early days was the language of the people. Later it became Latin for the Western world and remained the languge of the people for eastern Europe and the eastern nations.

The Eucharist was originally celebrated in people’s homes. There was no such thing as a parish. There were no church buildings.

Even the vestments have changed. Our priests’ vestments are a combo of pagan Roman vestments worn in the Roman temple and some worn by the Jewish high priests. Have you noticed that bishops still wear a kippah (Jewish) and a chasuble (sp?) Roman?

Church is even organized as a sovereign state, not just a faith community. Vatican City is a sovereign state and the Pope is the Regent.

Even the idea of a host instead of a loaf of bread is a new introduction into the liturgy.

Marriage was declared a sacrament long after the apostles were gone.

Today we have a Bible. There was no Bible during the lifetime of the Apostles. Faith was handed down by oral tradition and letters. The only written work at the time was the Torah.

Like these many thing change as time passes. The essential remains the same, which is the faith in the Paschal Mystery and everything that ties into that such as sacraments, morality and dogma have not changed.

The externals change all the time. That’s the way life is.