Archbishop Lefebvre

  • Thread starter Thread starter TantumErgo90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Smirking amusement”? Amazing how you’re quick to attack someone for allegedly speculating as to motives, and then do exactly the same thing yourself.

I stand by the facts. The pope did it (no one has attempted to deny that, mercifully). The Creed is to be proclaimed as in the Missal. John Paul promulgated the 2002 Missal. The Missal doesn’t say the pope gets to do as he pleases in the Roman Rite because he’s pope. He’s bound to the same Creed every other Roman Catholic is bound to.

So no, sorry, he can’t leave words out in a Roman Rite Mass.

And I suggest you think long and hard before posting more personal attacks on me when all I did was simply state 2 facts: the pope left out a word, and the word isn’t optional in the Roman Rite.
 
AlexV said:
“Smirking amusement”? Amazing how you’re quick to attack someone for allegedly speculating as to motives, and then do exactly the same thing yourself.

I stand by the facts. The pope did it (no one has attempted to deny that, mercifully). The Creed is to be proclaimed as in the Missal. John Paul promulgated the 2002 Missal. The Missal doesn’t say the pope gets to do as he pleases in the Roman Rite because he’s pope. He’s bound to the same Creed every other Roman Catholic is bound to.

So no, sorry, he can’t leave words out in a Roman Rite Mass.

And I suggest you think long and hard before posting more personal attacks on me when all I did was simply state 2 facts: the pope left out a word, and the word isn’t optional in the Roman Rite.
Click to expand...
Well, my goodness, you poor dear. Do tell how this bit of sarcasm came to be one of your posts:

"Originally Posted by AlexV
This is getting funnier by the minute.

ALL I said was John Paul omitted the word Filioque at a Roman Rite Mass, and shouldn’t have done it.

End of story.

No “evil”, no “slander”, no need to jump up and down in hysterics."

Take your own advice and think long and hard before you launch a personal insult toward any woman on this site. God created man and woman. Get used to it. (Hope your hysteria is dying down.) Your duck and cover and “voice of reason” is way too late - but, hey, now I know you better and that’s a very good thing.
 
The way the church treated Lefebvre opened my eyes to the Catholic faith. The Pope has complete control of the church and every aspect of its faith and worship. He can cast out rites that are over a thousand years old and replace them with new ones. He can unilaterally change doctrines that were believed for centuries. He can even do outrageous acts that would label you an apostate but if you object your out of line. I understand catholicism much better now. The Faith is subject to the pope not vice versa. And when Lefebvre dared to assert otherwise he was anathema.
 
I strongly suggest you get on topic. This argument isn’t about gender issues (I could care less). It’s about the Filioque and whether it can be omitted at a Roman Rite Mass. It can’t. Even if the celebrant is the pope.
 
AlexV said:
I strongly suggest you get on topic. This argument isn’t about gender issues (I could care less). It’s about the Filioque and whether it can be omitted at a Roman Rite Mass. It can’t. Even if the celebrant is the pope.
Click to expand...
I strongly suggest you get on topic. This thread is not about your amusement or anyone “jumping up and down in hysterics.” Get it? Yet?
 
Amusement? Nothing un-Catholic about that.

The pope left out the Filioque. He shouldn’t have. If you think everything he does is automatically fine because he’s pope, oh well. Your view isn’t Catholic.
 
VARC said:
The way the church treated Lefebvre opened my eyes to the Catholic faith. The Pope has complete control of the church and every aspect of its faith and worship. He can cast out rites that are over a thousand years old and replace them with new ones. He can unilaterally change doctrines that were believed for centuries. He can even do outrageous acts that would label you an apostate but if you object your out of line. I understand catholicism much better now. The Faith is subject to the pope not vice versa. And when Lefebvre dared to assert otherwise he was anathema.
Click to expand...
The faith is subject to God. The Holy Spirit inspires and guides the Pope who alone sits in Peter’s chair. Lefebvre chose to believe otherwise. Perhaps he imagined himself to be Pope. Lefebvre was duly warned and yet chose to disobey. End of story.
 
catharina said:
Well, my goodness, you poor dear. Do tell how this bit of sarcasm came to be one of your posts:

"Originally Posted by AlexV
This is getting funnier by the minute.

ALL I said was John Paul omitted the word Filioque at a Roman Rite Mass, and shouldn’t have done it.

End of story.

No “evil”, no “slander”, no need to jump up and down in hysterics."

Take your own advice and think long and hard before you launch a personal insult toward any woman on this site. God created man and woman. Get used to it. (Hope your hysteria is dying down.) Your duck and cover and “voice of reason” is way too late - but, hey, now I know you better and that’s a very good thing.
Click to expand...
Yes – God created man and woman — don’t see anyone here debating that. Now that has been said – anyone whether Man or Woman who participates in this forums and debates — should not be using their gender to fall back on --to accuse another of personal attack.
 
Lefebvre was defending and preserving the rites that the church used since time immemorial. Rites that nurtured the church for well over a thousand years. I guess catholics do not value that. The pope’s authority is what truly matters whatever the cause may be.
 
God works in mysterious ways. We have no idea what his plan was for Lefebvre.

But an argument could be made that there would have been no Ecclesia Dei and no Summorum Pontificum if it hadn’t been for Lefebvre.
 
Walking_Home said:
Yes – God created man and woman — don’t see anyone here debating that. Now that has been said – anyone whether Man or Woman who participates in this forums and debates — should not be using their gender to fall back on --to accuse another of personal attack.
Click to expand...
Quite true. Unless of course, the “other” has done exactly that. Can’t remember the last time I heard anyone accuse a man of “jumping up and down in hysterics.” Maybe it’s a new modernist thing?
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Notice the underlined part above. They concluded that it was “valid”.

Do you find it at all curious that they concluded two contrary things? That the words of consecration are required, yet at the same time they are not requried?
If that surprises you, it shouldn’t. One of the characteristics of moderninsts is a dual mind. They have no problem affirming contradictions.

.
Click to expand...
Pax–

Read the document, that’s why I provided the link, because I couldn’t paste the whole thing onto this thread.

When one reads the document you read that the WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE in the Eucharistic prayer of the Assyrian rite, but their Eucharistic prayer is not organized as ours.

In addition, their Eucharistic prayer dates back to the time of the Apostles and has all of the necessary elements for a valid consecreation: apostolic succession, bread and wine, validly ordained priest, intent to remain in union with the Last Supper, intent to celebrate the paschal mystery, and the words of Christ.

Also, the document gives the history of how the early church, popes and councils that followed have always accepted it and never questioned it.

Every detail is carefully explained in a very clear and logical manner in the document.

I can’t paste it here. It’s very long.
 
AlexV said:
God works in mysterious ways. We have no idea what his plan was for Lefebvre.

But an argument could be made that there would have been no Ecclesia Dei and no Summorum Pontificum if it hadn’t been for Lefebvre.
Click to expand...
It’s quite likely we’ll never know in this lifetime since Lefebvre chose separation from the Church and the chair of Peter. That was his choice.
 
AlexV said:
God works in mysterious ways. We have no idea what his plan was for Lefebvre.

But an argument could be made that there would have been no Ecclesia Dei and no Summorum Pontificum if it hadn’t been for Lefebvre.
Click to expand...
It is a fact that the MP is a direct result of Lefebvre disobedience. If he would have died the traditional Roman Rite would have died with him. No good deed goes unpunished if it involves defying the Holy Father
 
VARC said:
It is a fact that the MP is a direct result of Lefebvre disobedience. If he would have died the traditional Roman Rite would have died with him. No good deed goes unpunished if it involves defying the Holy Father
Click to expand...
“It is a fact that the MP is a direct result of Lefebvre disobedience.”

Preposterous.
God is dead but we have Lefebvre???
 
The problem for many Catholics today is they think celebration of the 1962 liturgy somehow demeans the post-conciliar liturgy. They think there’s something downright unseemly and borderline “disobedient” about it. They have made obedience the highest law (rather than charity). They think if the pope orders jumping jacks at the Consecration, you do them (such is posted prominently on an allegedly “papal obedience” site on the internet). It’s a strange result, I’d argue, of an unusually long pontificate (1978-2005) coming right after a period of major upheaval.
 
Nobody said God was dead. No wonder I cautioned you against hysterics. I stand by that caution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top