Lefevbre exaggerates regarding new offetory prayers

[AJV]

A quick check with google revealed this; "In the United States the new Lutheran rite (1978, Lutheran Book of Worship), draws considerably from Roman sources."

It seems that the similarity in the liturgy of the Catholic Church and Lutheran church is based on the fact that 8 years after the second Vatican Council the Lutheran church revised their rite “considerably from Roman sources,” meaning that it was the Lutherans who copied the Catholics and not the other way around.

So, Luther actually did NOT get “his Mass into the Catholic church.”

Incidentally, I remember reading about a priest on the EWTN forum who learned ancient languages at a Lutheran seminary. He was most surprised that the Lutheran seminarians were the last people in the world who cared about anything Martin Luther ever said!

Quite true, actually. Lutherans actually do not put as much emphasis on Luther as we credit them with. Not that they don’t adhere to a lot of what he, after all, taught - but I think Catholics often approach other denominations with a very “Catholic” mindset steeped in a Pope-Magesterium kind of thinking. Therefore, because in many cases Papal and Magisterial writing forms the basis of our adhered doctrine, and there is also a large amount of uniformity, we assume more-or-less the same of other denominations.

The same can be said of phrases like “Luther’s Mass” (though I am aware that the term might have been meant more broadly). Luther himself actually had only two main ones - the Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe. But the diverse umbrella of Lutheranism embraces many, many different church orders that emanated from different Lutheran centers - Brandenburg, Nuremburg, etc. - that were written by people other than Luther and do not necessarily follow his. Often, there is one idea from here, or another form there. Notably, for example, in almost all (until recently) except a few, was Luther’s insistence on no Eucharistic Prayer only the Words of Institution. But otherwise, they differ from each other in many ways.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m certainly not behind the times. I guess I don’t see how ecumenism can be accomplished without dialogue. Taking an ecumenical approach to other sects and religions does not mean the Church is pandering to anyone. Dialogue does not have to be a pejorative term.

As for AB Lefebvre, I guess we can split hairs. Luther certainly preached heresy against basic Church doctrine. However, for AB Lefebvre to openly defy the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (a pretty solid teaching of the Church), is not something to be glossed over. The difference seems to be to more just a matter of degree. Once Church leaders set themselves in public, overt opposition to the Holy Father, whatever the matter or justification, they are certainly not staunch defenders of the faith. Who decides what matters are worthy of oppositon and what isn’t? Suppose AB Lefebvre wakes up tomorrow and decides the Roman Church is wrong and misguided about priestly celibacy or the ordination of women? Obviously those things are at the other end of the spectrum, but the point is the same. If understanding that comparison escapes you, I’m afraid I can’t help.

A matter of degree? You must be joking. One says that the Blessed Sacrament is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul, And Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - and the other chooses to disobey the Pope - for whatever reason … and you think that is a matter of degree?? Yikes!

 

[giuseppeTO]

Quite true, actually. Lutherans actually do not put as much emphasis on Luther as we credit them with. Not that they don’t adhere to a lot of what he, after all, taught - but I think Catholics often approach other denominations with a very “Catholic” mindset steeped in a Pope-Magesterium kind of thinking. Therefore, because in many cases Papal and Magisterial writing forms the basis of our adhered doctrine, and there is also a large amount of uniformity, we assume more-or-less the same of other denominations.

The same can be said of phrases like “Luther’s Mass” (though I am aware that the term might have been meant more broadly). Luther himself actually had only two main ones - the Formula Missae and the Deutsche Messe. But the diverse umbrella of Lutheranism embraces many, many different church orders that emanated from different Lutheran centers - Brandenburg, Nuremburg, etc. - that were written by people other than Luther and do not necessarily follow his. Often, there is one idea from here, or another form there. Notably, for example, in almost all (until recently) except a few, was Luther’s insistence on no Eucharistic Prayer only the Words of Institution. But otherwise, they differ from each other in many ways.

AJ - very insightful! Thanks. In any case, I’m sure Luther is looking up at us and enjoying that fact that we are worshiping the same way … and it isn’t the Mass of Pius V.

 

[Filioque]

My intent was not to be over-harsh with your posts. You have to admit that your bitterness comes through more than anything else… If I might paraphrase your great ending statement, saints only exist in heaven, and heaven aint here.

I started saying a novena three months ago for the Holy Father which was published by the Superior General of the FSSP and I ended up incorporating it into my regular morning office (too bad its not in Latin ). I think that if you and I continue use the two most powerful weapons we have, the rosary and our knees, we can win the reunion of the church.

What some may see as your being “over-harsh” I would chalk up to the Fortress Mentality that many I know within the SSPX camp have developed after years of the irregular status between the SSPX and the Holy See. I could be wrong, as I don’t know you. I do find it interesting that you seem to write as if you know me, and my motivation. My hope is that those within as well as outside of the SSPX see the Society for what it is. My take is that the primary objectives of the SSPX are good and honest, however the means are faulty. I also feel, as I have stated that Abp. Lefebvre was manipulated by some of the hardliners within the power structure in the SSPX, his day to day interaction with the Society over time became less and less, as he understood his own frailties, and focused on the salvation of his own soul. I am sure that both his physical and emotional health were impacted even prior to his final illness. Once again I have to rely not only on what I saw but what those who remained within the SSPX told me about the way he was “handled” by the leadership in the SSPX.

Your assertion that I am bitter, and it is my bitterness that shows through is I think faulty, as, my primary concern is like your own for souls. Souls that are not and cannot be served by maintaining the current irregular status of the SSPX, and by the faulty ecclesiology of the Society, or ignoring the problems within the SSPX. Exposing the dangers to souls of the SSPX, does not endorse or excuse the errors of the vocal minority of Modernists and Liberals that exist at the other end of the spectrum.

There are any number of other issues that need to be addressed as part of and after any regularization of the SSPX. Among them, a process for canonically erecting parishes, where chapels have been erected without the permission of the Local Ordinary, Annulments granted by SSPX, and dozens of other things that the Society has presumed to do with Supplied Jurisdiction. (Another topic, much more complex, as I don’t agree that the arguments of the SSPX regarding Supplied Jurisdiciton are 100% valid, and great libierties have been taken in the name of that concept.)

 

[tcm22]

A matter of degree? You must be joking. One says that the Blessed Sacrament is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul, And Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - and the other chooses to disobey the Pope - for whatever reason … and you think that is a matter of degree?? Yikes!

Yes. A matter of degree. In addition to denying the miracle of the Eucharist, many of our separated Protestant brethren are at odds with the Catholic Church over theological, traditional, and scriptural basis of the Papacy.

Are you saying the Holy Spirit does not guide the Church or the Holy Father, or that AB Lefebvre is able to discern when it does or doesn’t? The whole notion of opposition to Papal Authority is a slippery slope. Rejection of this basic teaching opens the door to rejection of just about anything the Church teaches. If one rejects the authority of the Pope, particularly one of his Bishops, then there is nothing that isn’t open to individual interpretation.

Sure, you may disagree with our Protestant brethren, but the intellectual basis for Luther’s complaints (and the immediate generations of his followers), is the same as what I see with the many of the complaints of the SSPX? Where do you draw the line? Does Bishop Lefebvre have the right to set conditions on his fidelity to the Holy Father? Does Pope Benedict need to seek approval from him before publishing any positions or teachings lest he cause some future break with our “traditionalist” factions?

Yes…it’s a matter of degree. Opposition to the Pope and rejection of his authority as the leader of Christ’s Church on Earth is a serious matter. As serious as rejection of the Eucharist? Heck, I’ll leave that to others to decide. Either way, it’s certainly not a path to salvation. I’m sure there have been dozens of breakaway factions in the Church over the centuries, upset over some change or another. Thankfully, the Church survives, and the gates of Hell won’t prevail against it.

 

[AJV]

AJ - very insightful! Thanks. In any case, I’m sure Luther is looking up at us and enjoying that fact that we are worshiping the same way … and it isn’t the Mass of Pius V.

The point is that we actually aren’t worshipping the same way.

Actually, I think he might just be tearing his hair out or rolling over in his grave at some of his modern descendants’ doctrinal compromises. To cite a small example, the fact that some Lutheran feel quite comfortable using the Collect for Corpus Christi. If look at it with one kind of logic, that would make the Traditional missal support consubstantiation.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Are you saying the Holy Spirit does not guide the Church or the Holy Father, or that AB Lefebvre is able to discern when it does or doesn’t?

Hmm. Not sure how you got that from any of my posts but yes, the Holy Ghost provides guidance to the church and the Pope which the Church, and even the Pope, may choose to follow or disregard. And please don;t ask me to supply you the list of times throughout history where a Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, or priests have neglected to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Post are limited to 1000 characters.

Sure, you may disagree with our Protestant brethren, but the intellectual basis for Luther’s complaints (and the immediate generations of his followers), is the same as what I see with the many of the complaints of the SSPX?

I think instead of the SSPX, you meant to say the modern Catholic Church and just mistyped. Statistically, more than 60% of the “in communion” members of the Roman Catholic Church, including some Bishops, do not follow the Pope on some important matter of faith including abortion, euthanasia, necessity of Mass attendance, birth control, gay marriage, and women priests to name a few. This indifferentism is the is the new Protestantism. Unless of course, like many modern Catholics, you are all wrapped around the term “in communion” and do not consider those who oppose the morals and tenets of the faith as being outside the church as long as they attend a diocesan church and check “Catholic” on their census form.

The shameful way Bishops have thumbed their nose at the Pope regarding access to the EF makes a mockery of your argument. And the fact that he had to openly chastise the entire episcopacy over their disrespectful reaction to the lifting of the excommunications in January is disgusting. In communion, indeed.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The point is that we actually aren’t worshipping the same way.

Actually, I think he might just be tearing his hair out or rolling over in his grave at some of his modern descendants’ doctrinal compromises. To cite a small example, the fact that some Lutheran feel quite comfortable using the Collect for Corpus Christi. If look at it with one kind of logic, that would make the Traditional missal support consubstantiation.

I work with a Missouri Synod Lutheran who consider it popish to chant anything.

But in my book, if you can’t tell the ceremonies apart, then they worship alike. And I’ve attended them both, and I can tell you that they are the same, no disrespect to your all your research intended.

 

[tcm22]

Hmm. Not sure how you got that from any of my posts but yes, the Holy Ghost provides guidance to the church and the Pope which the Church, and even the Pope, may choose to follow or disregard. And please don;t ask me to supply you the list of times throughout history where a Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, or priests have neglected to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Post are limited to 1000 characters.

I think instead of the SSPX, you meant to say the modern Catholic Church and just mistyped. Statistically, more than 60% of the “in communion” members of the Roman Catholic Church, including some Bishops, do not follow the Pope on some important matter of faith including abortion, euthanasia, necessity of Mass attendance, birth control, gay marriage, and women priests to name a few. This indifferentism is the is the new Protestantism. Unless of course, like many modern Catholics, you are all wrapped around the term “in communion” and do not consider those who oppose the morals and tenets of the faith as being outside the church as long as they attend a diocesan church and check “Catholic” on their census form.

The shameful way Bishops have thumbed their nose at the Pope regarding access to the EF makes a mockery of your argument. And the fact that he had to openly chastise the entire episcopacy over their disrespectful reaction to the lifting of the excommunications in January is disgusting. In communion, indeed.

I don’t deny there are millions of Catholics, particularly in the US, who are Catholics in name only. It’s something the Church struggles with.

How is the SSPX “indifferentism” to Papal Authority any different? You seem to set yourself apart from the “Cafeteria Catholics” that are so easy to criticize? How are you any different, other than what you choose to accept or reject? In my mind, many aspects of the SSPX are worse in that their differences with Rome are promoted in open defiance to the Church.

You are quick to call sitting Bishops “shameful” for thumbing their nose at the Pope regarding access to the EF. Were you as quick to call Lefebrve shamful as well for the way he openly and publicly defied the Holy Father, or was he more in touch with Truth than the Pope? Frankly, I can think of many reasons whey Bishops would not immediately implement the EF. I can’t think of many where an Archbishop would be justified in outright defiance to the Pope.

Again, perhaps it’s just a matter of degree.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I don’t deny there are millions of Catholics, particularly in the US, who are Catholics in name only. It’s something the Church struggles with.

How is the SSPX “indifferentism” to Papal Authority any different? You seem to set yourself apart from the “Cafeteria Catholics” that are so easy to criticize? How are you any different, other than what you choose to accept or reject? In my mind, many aspects of the SSPX are worse in that their differences with Rome are promoted in open defiance to the Church.

You are quick to call sitting Bishops “shameful” for thumbing their nose at the Pope regarding access to the EF. Were you as quick to call Lefebrve shamful as well for the way he openly and publicly defied the Holy Father, or was he more in touch with Truth than the Pope? Frankly, I can think of many reasons whey Bishops would not immediately implement the EF. I can’t think of many where an Archbishop would be justified in outright defiance to the Pope.

Again, perhaps it’s just a matter of degree.

The Archbishop was a missionary who spent his entire life ministering to the natives in Africa and Nepal. He was shocked at what was happening regarding how the council was being implemented. So, whether you believe it or not, he believed as do many in the church today, that the Body of Christ is in crisis and that the key to this crisis was, among other things, a return to the Mass of Pius V. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Canon Law allows exceptions, particularly to consecrations, in the state of crisis, even if it is only in the mind of the consecrator. That is the Archbishops defense.

But think of this, once the irregularity is resolved, it would appear that most in the SSPX will be in more “perfect communion” with the Pope than 75% of the folks in your current parish and perhaps more than many diocesan bishops, if statistics are to be believed.

 

[I_Believe]

This is typical of those who totally oppose the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Lefebvre never mentions that the new offertory prayers do mention sacrifice (Blessed are you Lord God of all creation through your goodness we have this bread to OFFER … it will become for us the Bread of Life.) Same with the prayer for the wine (it will become our spiritual drink). Then what is said in the New Mass??? " May the Lord accept the SACRIFICE at your hands for the praise and glory of His name…"

Notice Lefebvre says the prayers do not express the Catholic notion of sacrifice. SAYS WHO??? SAYS HIM??? WHO THE HECK IS HE??? It might be his opinion that the old prayers are better but, who is he to say the new mass prayers (offertory) are unacceptable especially when they mention “offer” and “sacrifice?”

Lefebvre’s words:
“The new Offertory prayers do not express the Catholic notion of the sacrifice. They simply express the concept of a mere partaking of bread and wine. For instance, this Tridentine Mass addressed to God the prayer: “Accept O Holy Father, heavenly and eternal God, this immaculate victim which your unworthy servant offers to you, my living and true God to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences.” The New Mass says: ‘We offer this bread as the bread of life.’ There is no mention of sacrifice or victim. This text is vague and imprecise, lends itself to ambiguity and was meant to be acceptable to Protestants. It is, however, unacceptable to the true Catholic faith and doctrine. The substance has been changed in favor of accommodation and compromise.”

Why is it always H.E. Archbishop LeFevbre who is singled out ? Like he and Fr Wathen were the only two clergy who ever dared question the Novus Ordo ?

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148). ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

What do you have to say about the words of that group of clergy ? I think one of them is now Bishop of Rome, Deo gratias.

 

[tcm22]

The Archbishop was a missionary who spent his entire life ministering to the natives in Africa and Nepal. He was shocked at what was happening regarding how the council was being implemented. So, whether you believe it or not, he believed as do many in the church today, that the Body of Christ is in crisis and that the key to this crisis was, among other things, a return to the Mass of Pius V. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Canon Law allows exceptions, particularly to consecrations, in the state of crisis, even if it is only in the mind of the consecrator. That is the Archbishops defense.

But think of this, once the irregularity is resolved, it would appear that most in the SSPX will be in more “perfect communion” with the Pope than 75% of the folks in your current parish and perhaps more than many diocesan bishops, if statistics are to be believed.

Unfortunately, Canon Law regarding Lefevbre’s consecrations pretty clearly rejected what he tried to do. From all I’ve read, he died in an a state of schism. That was also not something that was a snap decision by any single official at the Vatican. Despite consultatations, correspondence, and the direct involvement of the Holy Father, Lefevbre forged ahead with his illicit consecrations.

Certainly not a role model for any of us. I’m glad to see the process of reconciliation between SSPX and the Church.

Getting back to the the OP, why would any practicing, faithful Catho

 

[giuseppeTO]

Unfortunately, Canon Law regarding Lefevbre’s consecrations pretty clearly rejected what he tried to do. From all I’ve read, he died in an a state of schism. That was also not something that was a snap decision by any single official at the Vatican. Despite consultatations, correspondence, and the direct involvement of the Holy Father, Lefevbre forged ahead with his illicit consecrations.

Certainly not a role model for any of us. I’m glad to see the process of reconciliation between SSPX and the Church.

Getting back to the the OP, why would any practicing, faithful Catho

Nope.

Canon Law pretty clearly supports his position. All communications on the subject from Rome, particularly Ecclesia Dei, have said that the SSPX is not, nor ever was in formal schism … it is very clearly documented.

The Archibishop’s salvation is certainly in the hands of The Almighty. I believe he will one day be counted among the princes and saints of the church.

 

[I_Believe]

Unfortunately, Canon Law regarding Lefevbre’s consecrations pretty clearly rejected what he tried to do. From all I’ve read, he died in an a state of schism. That was also not something that was a snap decision by any single official at the Vatican. Despite consultatations, correspondence, and the direct involvement of the Holy Father, Lefevbre forged ahead with his illicit consecrations.

Certainly not a role model for any of us. I’m glad to see the process of reconciliation between SSPX and the Church.

Getting back to the the OP, why would any practicing, faithful Catho

Please provide evidence of formal schism. Actually Canon Law may well vindicate him. GRHS

 

[I_Believe]

Nope.

Canon Law pretty clearly supports his position. All communications on the subject from Rome, particularly Ecclesia Dei, have said that the SSPX is not, nor ever was in formal schism … it is very clearly documented.

The Archibishop’s salvation is certainly in the hands of The Almighty. I believe he will one day be counted among the princes and saints of the church.

Aw, you posted as I was typing a reply. You answered better than I

 

[tcm22]

Please provide evidence of formal schism. Actually Canon Law may well vindicate him. GRHS

Well, I’m no Canon Lawyer, but much of what I’ve read indicates Lefevbre’s decision to consecrate Bishops without authority from the Pope was considered a schismatic act and resulted in his and their excommunication.

Are my facts wrong?

I’m not sure how Canon Law can vindicate a man who consecrated a Bishop without authority.

Is this not true?

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

–BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Yes, the ex-communication was recently lifted, but that was under condition that they accept the authority of the Holy Father, correct? Either way, I don’t read anything that says the consecrations are now considered licit.

 

[Timothysis]

I work with a Missouri Synod Lutheran who consider it popish to chant anything.

But in my book, if you can’t tell the ceremonies apart, then they worship alike. And I’ve attended them both, and I can tell you that they are the same, no disrespect to your all your research intended.

Really? So did the service actually consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Did the administration of the sacrament sanctify the souls of those who attended?

You seem to press the point that because Lutherans worship in a manner very similar to the Missal of Pope Paul VI, then the ceremonies are “alike,” even though Lutherans are outside of the Church, have no valid apostolic succession and have no authority to valid administer Christ’s sacraments. Just because dogs have four legs and a tail doesn’t mean that all four-legged creatures with tails are dogs. Lutherans copied the Roman Missal; that doesn’t mean that they worship the same as Catholics.

 

[I_Believe]

Well, I’m no Canon Lawyer, but much of what I’ve read indicates Lefevbre’s decision to consecrate Bishops without authority from the Pope was considered a schismatic act and resulted in his and their excommunication.

Are my facts wrong?

I’m not sure how Canon Law can vindicate a man who consecrated a Bishop without authority.

Is this not true?

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CBISLEFB.HTM

Yes, the ex-communication was recently lifted, but that was under condition that they accept the authority of the Holy Father, correct? Either way, I don’t read anything that says the consecrations are now considered licit.

You’ve presented a decree of excommunication, not a decree of formal schism. Cardinal Gantin has no authority to declare such, even though he used the word.

And no, the decree lifting didn’t mention specific conditions as you are presenting them. If you read the decree, you will see the 4 are called Bishops. The Holy See does not engage in discussions on matters of Doctrine with those in formal schism. Those discussions are taking place.

Before H.H. BXVI was elected Bishop of Rome, all of these potshots at the SSPX held some weight. Now they mean nothing. The irony in all of this, is the hypocrisy of those within the Church displaying the behavior they claim to despise.

The SSPX is not the boogeyman. All of the old arguments against them are in vain at this point.

 

[tcm22]

You’ve presented a decree of excommunication, not a decree of formal schism. Cardinal Gantin has no authority to declare such, even though he used the word.

And no, the decree lifting didn’t mention specific conditions as you are presenting them. If you read the decree, you will see the 4 are called Bishops. The Holy See does not engage in discussions on matters of Doctrine with those in formal schism. Those discussions are taking place.

Before H.H. BXVI was elected Bishop of Rome, all of these potshots at the SSPX held some weight. Now they mean nothing. The irony in all of this, is the hypocrisy of those within the Church displaying the behavior they claim to despise.

The SSPX is not the boogeyman. All of the old arguments against them are in vain at this point.

Thanks for the clarification. I believe I also read that AB Levevbre appealed the decisions from Rome on canonical grounds but was rejected. I can’t recall where I read that, nor can I find that again.

I certainly don’t consider SSPX the boogeyman, but I would disagree that the lifting of the excommunication has pushed aside all the problems. From what I read on this forum, there seems to be self-identified SSPX members who continue to chafe at the notion of the OF of the Mass, or the idea that AB Lefevbre may have been off base. In my mind, anyone who professed to follow the teachings of a man who openly defied the Holy Father and was formally excommunicated for his actions should examine their basic beliefs against what it means to be a Catholic. While the lifting of the excommunication is a significant step, it surely doesn’t erase decades of defiance. Who’s right? As a faithful Catholic the answer for me is an easy one. I know which side to choose when people take stands against the Church.

The apologists on this website are quite clear that, with very limited exceptions, faithful Catholics are not to receive the sacraments from SSPX-affiliated clergy. That they persist in offering them despite being judged illicit is an affront to the authority of the Church. Has the lifting of the excommunication changed that?

I’m still learning here, so if I’m wrong, please let me know.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Really? So did the service actually consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Did the administration of the sacrament sanctify the souls of those who attended?

You seem to press the point that because Lutherans worship in a manner very similar to the Missal of Pope Paul VI, then the ceremonies are “alike,” even though Lutherans are outside of the Church, have no valid apostolic succession and have no authority to valid administer Christ’s sacraments. Just because dogs have four legs and a tail doesn’t mean that all four-legged creatures with tails are dogs. Lutherans copied the Roman Missal; that doesn’t mean that they worship the same as Catholics.

Exactly Tim … you’ve precisely hit the point. They look exactly the same but no Sacrament was confected. Therein lies the critical danger to the faith of changing our Mass, as the Novus Ordo meant to do, to be in line with every other mainstream heretical Protestant service. The amount of catechism a typical adult Catholic has today is close to none. The church has become very lax about inter-communion with Protestants and inter-faith services with non-Catholics is very prevalent throughout the church.

So you now have the services indistinguishable (except for those who know their theology) and an overriding Post-vatican II aura of acceptance and equality and you end up with religious indifference. They look the same, they are holy, therefore, they must be the same.

To you and I discussing this, it may seem absurd, but it is the reality of the situation. The Novus Ordo is helping to dumb us all down to the one world religion - a Masonic concept, where we all believe in the same God and can all worship together under the same roof with the same ceremony.