Archbishop Lefebvre

  • Thread starter Thread starter TantumErgo90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexV said:
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.
Click to expand...
“They think if the pope orders jumping jacks at the Consecration, you do them.” Horrifying. See a doctor for treatment of your hysteria.
 
It’s what someone on the web posted on a website devoted to allegedly Catholic apologetics.

I didn’t make it up. Some people believe such nonsense.
 
catharina said:
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?

Quote=catharina
Honey (hope you don’t mind the familiar term but I see you’re the age of my son), you’re the one jumping up and down in hysterics.

Quote=catharina
Now, now dear, I’m sure you might have the very best of intentions. Do your best to calm down
Click to expand...
It seems that would have been you — following it up by telling AlexV to “calm down”.
 
AlexV said:
You know what’s scary?

Here we are on a Catholic thread, a Roman Catholic thread, actually, and I raise the issue of John Paul II omiting the “Filioque” from a ROMAN Rite Mass.

And someone posts that well, you know, it was “only” added in the 11th century (note: Medieval prejudice) and it is allowed to be omitted by Easterners (note: Easterners know best prejudice) and THEREFORE John Paul gets a free pass for dropping it from the ROMAN Mass.

Huh, come again?

Do Roman Catholics value their faith and doctrines so little that they blithely accept the dismissal of WHAT IS PRINTED IN THEIR OWN 2002 MISSAL because it’s “only” a millenium old and people from a DIFFERENT rite regularly omit it?

That’s scary indeed.
Click to expand...
Can I try to help?

I did study formal theology for many years and taught as well. The rubrics of the mass, including the words in the prayers, are part of Church law and are governed by liturgical law.

The theology of the filioque was formally endorsed by the Church during the Middle Ages, but it was believed for centuries, back to St. John the Evangelist who is the first to propose it.

That being said, a Pope is not bound by liturgical rubrics, just as he is not bound by Canon law. He is bound by faith. Therefore, the elements of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, must be present. Those are part of the faith of the Church.

How he celebrates the mass and what words he omits or inserts are up to his discretion, as long as it does not deny the faith or change the essence of the Liturgy.

For example, there is a formula for Baptism used among many Protestant churches that says “I baptize you in Jesus’ name”. That’s a change in the essence of the baptismal liturgy. You have to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

However, if the Pope said, “I baptize you in the name of the Logos, and his eternal Father, and the Holy Spirit that flows from their love” or some such wording that includes the entire Trinity and makes it clear that he is baptizing in the name of the Trinity. This certainly a strange way of saying it, but it fulfills the requirement for the Baptismal liturgy. The formula is trinitarian.

If the pope leaves out the filioque, but accepts the theology of the filioque, he is not leaving out anything that is absolutely necessary for the validity and leceity of the Eucharistic liturgy. As I said, he bound to preserve the faith, but not bound by liturgical and canon law. He is the only Catholic who is not bound to such laws.

I hope this helps. By the way, those words of baptism that I wrote above, are an example that I made up, I’ve never heard anyone use it. Actually, I kind of like it 😃

Don’t lynch me, just adding a little levity to an otherwise toooooo heavy thread which began with a very simple qeustion.
 
catharina said:
“It is a fact that the MP is a direct result of Lefebvre disobedience.”

Preposterous.
God is dead but we have Lefebvre???
Click to expand...
It’s like I said. Nothing matters in the catholic religion, not the mass, not the sacraments, not the Fathers nor the patristic councils, nothing. We will give up all if the Holy Father commands. And so it is the deification of the pope. If Lefebvre opposes the pope then he opposes God. The titles are now interchangable.
 
TantumErgo90 said:
I am wondering if one can hold this opinion and still remain in good accord with the Catholic Church. Here it is: One can support and believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was a great archbishop and did wonders for traditionalism, but he was totally wrong to ordain the four bishops without papal mandate. Also, one does not need to believe in what Vatican II said because it was Pastoral in nature. There were some good things said at Vatican II, but certainty some bad. I know some SSPXers and people who go to “indult” (i know that there is now not an indult, but for the sake of distinction) churches who hold to this opinion. They love the Holy Father and believe the Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong in the ordinations and one told me to read “I accuse the Council” and I am also wondering if this is an okay book to read. I have ordered it, but am hesitant to read it. Personally, I think Archbishop Lefebvre had a good heart and loved the church dearly, but went astray with the ordination. I pray that he is in heaven.
Click to expand...
Returning to the topic, I will say that I have no need or desire to understand any more of the life and times of Bishop Lefevbre.
 
No, actually, NOWHERE in the history of the Church has it ever been taught that the pope can do as he pleases with the liturgy every time he steps up to the altar so long as he keeps an absolute bare minimum for sacramental validity.

The liturgy doesn’t belong to the pope. He inherits it and guards it. He can promulgate changes to it. But he can’t promulgate a Missal for his Rite and then do whatever he wants at the altar so long as he keeps some bare minimum.

Again, some people here have a very un-Catholic view of what popes can do. They are indeed turning them into mini-gods.
 
JReducation said:
Can I try to help with the filioque question?

I did study formal theology for many years. The rubrics of the mass, including the words in the prayers, are part of Church law and are governed by liturgical law.

The theology of the filioque was formally endorsed by the Church during the Middle Ages, but it was believed for centuries, back to St. John the Evangelist who is the first to propose it.

That being said, a Pope is not bound by liturgical rubrics, just as he is not bound by Canon law. He is bound by faith. Therefore, the elements of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, must be present. Those are part of the faith of the Church.

How he celebrates the mass and what words he omits or inserts are up to his discretion, as long as it does not deny the faith or change the essence of the Liturgy.

For example, there is a formula for Baptism used among many Protestant churches that says “I baptize you in Jesus’ name”. That’s a change in the essence of the baptismal liturgy. You have to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

However, if the Pope said, “I baptize you in the name of the Logos, and his eternal Father, and the Holy Spirit that flows from their love” or some such wording that includes the entire Trinity and makes it clear that he is baptizing in the name of the Triune God the words are valid. This would be a strange way of saying it, but it fulfills the requirement for the Baptismal liturgy. The formula is trinitarian.

If the pope leaves out the filioque, but accepts the theology of the filioque, he is not leaving out anything that is absolutely necessary for the validity and leceity of the Eucharistic liturgy. As I said, he is bound to preserve the faith, but not bound by liturgical and canon law. He is the only Catholic who is not bound to such laws.

I hope this helps. By the way, those words of baptism that I wrote above, are an example that I made up, I’ve never heard anyone use it. Actually, I kind of like it 😃

Don’t lynch me, just adding a little levity to an otherwise toooooo heavy thread which began with a very simple qeustion.
Click to expand...
 
JReducation said:
Can I try to help?

I did study formal theology for many years and taught as well. The rubrics of the mass, including the words in the prayers, are part of Church law and are governed by liturgical law.

The theology of the filioque was formally endorsed by the Church during the Middle Ages, but it was believed for centuries, back to St. John the Evangelist who is the first to propose it.

That being said, a Pope is not bound by liturgical rubrics, just as he is not bound by Canon law. He is bound by faith. Therefore, the elements of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, must be present. Those are part of the faith of the Church.

How he celebrates the mass and what words he omits or inserts are up to his discretion, as long as it does not deny the faith or change the essence of the Liturgy.

For example, there is a formula for Baptism used among many Protestant churches that says “I baptize you in Jesus’ name”. That’s a change in the essence of the baptismal liturgy. You have to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How ever, if the Pope said, “I baptize you in the name of the Logos, and his eternal Father, and the Holy Spirit that flows from their love” or some such wording that includes the entire Trinity and makes it clear that he is baptizing in the name of the Trinity. This certainly a strange way of saying it, but it fulfills the requirement for the Baptismal liturgy. The formula is trinitarian.

If the pope leaves out the filioque, but accepts the theology of the filioque, he is not leaving out anything that is absolutely necessary for the validity and leceity of the Eucharistic liturgy. As I said, he bound to preserve the faith, but not bound by liturgical and canon law. He is the only Catholic who is not bound to such laws.

I hope this helps. By the way, those words of baptism that I wrote above, are an example that I made up, I’ve never heard anyone use it. Actually, I kind of like it 😃

Don’t lynch me, just adding a little levity to an otherwise toooooo heavy thread which began with a very simple qeustion.
Click to expand...
Very well-reasoned response.
 
VARC said:
It’s like I said. Nothing matters in the catholic religion, not the mass, not the sacraments, not the Fathers nor the patristic councils, nothing. We will give up all if the Holy Father commands. And so it is the deification of the pope. If Lefebvre opposes the pope then he opposes God. The titles are now interchangable.
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you’re implying that the Lefebvre separatists are the faithful and the faithful are idolators. Is that it?
 
AlexV said:
No, actually, NOWHERE in the history of the Church has it ever been taught that the pope can do as he pleases with the liturgy every time he steps up to the altar so long as he keeps an absolute bare minimum for sacramental validity.

The liturgy doesn’t belong to the pope. He inherits it and guards it. He can promulgate changes to it. But he can’t promulgate a Missal for his Rite and then do whatever he wants at the altar so long as he keeps some bare minimum.

Again, some people here have a very un-Catholic view of what popes can do. They are indeed turning them into mini-gods.
Click to expand...
… and

if I understand you correctly, you’re implying that the Lefebvre separatists are the faithful and the faithful are idolators. Is that it?
 
AlexV said:
No, actually, NOWHERE in the history of the Church has it ever been taught that the pope can do as he pleases with the liturgy every time he steps up to the altar so long as he keeps an absolute bare minimum for sacramental validity.

The liturgy doesn’t belong to the pope. He inherits it and guards it. He can promulgate changes to it. But he can’t promulgate a Missal for his Rite and then do whatever he wants at the altar so long as he keeps some bare minimum.

Again, some people here have a very un-Catholic view of what popes can do. They are indeed turning them into mini-gods.
Click to expand...
Omitting the filioque is not exactly equivalent to throwing the liturgy out the window.

It’s an exercise of his right, as the supreme jurist.

You cannot impose law (liturgical or canon law) on any pope. That is written.
 
AlexV said:
No, actually, NOWHERE in the history of the Church has it ever been taught that the pope can do as he pleases with the liturgy every time he steps up to the altar so long as he keeps an absolute bare minimum for sacramental validity.

The liturgy doesn’t belong to the pope. He inherits it and guards it. He can promulgate changes to it. But he can’t promulgate a Missal for his Rite and then do whatever he wants at the altar so long as he keeps some bare minimum.

Again, some people here have a very un-Catholic view of what popes can do. They are indeed turning them into mini-gods.
Click to expand...
 
catharina said:
If I understand you correctly, you’re implying that the Lefebvre separatists are the faithful and the faithful are idolators. Is that it?
Click to expand...
I am stating that the Lefebvrist separatists are faithful to the catholic religion as it was believed and practiced before the council. And the others are faithful to the Pope to the point of abandoning the practices of thier church that stood for over 1000 years prior. You decide which is more important.
 
VARC said:
I am stating that the Lefebvrist separatists are faithful to the catholic religion as it was believed and practiced before the council. And the others are faithful to the Pope to the point of abandoning the practices of thier church that stood for over 1000 years prior. You decide which is more important.
Click to expand...
That’s easy. God puts us in the time he wants us. That is where we are to live. But “abandon” is inaccurate, unless you consider the disconinuing of any discipline an abandonment. Then the Church has been doing that for centuries.
 
VARC said:
I am stating that the Lefebvrist separatists are faithful to the catholic religion as it was believed and practiced before the council. And the others are faithful to the Pope to the point of abandoning the practices of thier church that stood for over 1000 years prior. You decide which is more important.
Click to expand...
What is most important to me in your post (above) is that you agree with my categoringizing the Lefebvre band as separatists.

Indeed they are exactly that.

Thank you.
 
catharina said:
What is most important to me in your post (above) is that you agree with my categoringizing the Lefebvre band as separatists.

Indeed they are exactly that.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Trust me I don’t agree with you. you didn’t answer my question. which is most important
 
pnewton said:
That’s easy. God puts us in the time he wants us. That is where we are to live. But “abandon” is inaccurate, unless you consider the disconinuing of any discipline an abandonment. Then the Church has been doing that for centuries.
Click to expand...
Catholics never considered the traditional rite of mass a just another discipline that could be cast away. It was the great pearl of their religion something very sacred to them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top