W
Walking_Home
Guest
I am not so presumptuous and prejudicial to say that I know they left.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I am not so presumptuous and prejudicial to say that I know they left.
M
mgrfin
Guest
The Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, has said so. She excommunicated these men, with the power and the authority of Jesus himself, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I am not so presumptuous and prejudicial to say that I know they left.
It is time for them to come home - not ‘walking’ but running.
peace
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, has said so. She excommunicated these men, with the power and the authority of Jesus himself, guided by the Holy Spirit.
It is time for them to come home - not ‘walking’ but running.
peace
It is up to the Church — to deal with the situation. The vitrol you reflect by calling them apostates is of your own making —brewing within you.
G
GerardP
Guest
Latin has numerous benefits over the vernacular. But any socio-cultural observer would recognize that even in false professions, the languages of worship die as the vernacular. Whether Koine Greek, Elizabethan English or Old Slavonic, the so-called “vernacular” languages are no longer used. There is an element of any religious culture to set apart the language of worship. To make it “sacred” (ie. to set apart)The TLM is fine, if you understand Latin. Let’s not get into this foolishness of saying Latin is the language of the angels, or, the immutability of the dead Latin language, or the preposterous belief that Jesus spoke Latin.
Another false excommunication that was lifted when he reconciled with the Church. He also did not have to recant any of his views. He recited the Athanasian Creed to formalize his reconciliation.Fr. Feeney is dead. He was excommunicated, wasn’t he?
I’ll bet Betty Crocker is more responsible for gas ovens.He spread hatred for the Jews. Hatred never accomplishes anything - but more gas ovens.
Feeney never spread any hatred for Jews.
Who besides you has ever misused the word “Apostate” in reference to Fr. Feeney?Hardly anyone remembers Feeney for anything, except being an apostate.
Most importantly, he identified the root of a problem that is the source of all the modern heresies and problems in the Church.What has he done, what has he accomplished, what have his followers done?
All I see are a few stranglers, like here on this Internet site, continuing to spread hatred for which Feeney was noted for. Hatred for the Jews, hatred for the Church.
You read too much liberal propaganda. You don’t seem to know what “hatred” is. Or you are just engaging in smear tactics again.peace.
G
GerardP
Guest
This is a typical tactic. Use the word “Church” to express the fallible, reversible human actions by Churchmen.The Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, has said so. She excommunicated these men, with the power and the authority of Jesus himself, guided by the Holy Spirit. It is time for them to come home - not ‘walking’ but running.
peace
To say that the Church “guided by the Holy Spirit” excommunicated these men is a horrific perversion of Catholic teaching regarding the negative Charism of the Holy Ghost.
Turning the Pope into a prophet in perpetual overt communication with God is a total perversion of the solid, sensible, reasonable teaching that the Church has been given to safeguard, especially in regards to the papacy.
M
mgrfin
Guest
It is up to the Church? To do what? Make amends for doing what the Holy Spirit has moved the Church to do?
It is up to the Church — to deal with the situation. The vitrol you reflect by calling them apostates is of your own making —brewing within you.
If you have sinned, it is not up to the Church to drag you into Church, and do the repentance one should be doing.
Repentance comes from the sinner, not from the forgiver.
As for “Apostacy”, “Heresy”, and “Schism” - don’t turn those words against me. They are deserving of penalties in the Canon
Law of the Church.
John Paul II wrote his letter “Ecclesia Dei”. It was he who accused the followers of Lefebre of ‘schism’ as defined in the Code, and who confirmed the ‘ferendae sententiae’ penalties on them.
Archbishop Lefebre is not the victim. He did a deliberate act to take his group out of the Church, and he thereby garnered the penalty of the Church for that.
I pray for these dissents daily. Maybe you are holier than me, but don’t blame me for these reactionaries’ actions.
I share no blame; I pray for their return. I put up with their jibes and attacks. (“I will pin your tail to the wall”). Did you defend me against Gerard for his ill-temperate remarks?
Peace.
peace
W
Walking_Home
Guest
It is up to the Church? To do what? Make amends for doing what the Holy Spirit has moved the Church to do?
If you have sinned, it is not up to the Church to drag you into Church, and do the repentance one should be doing.
Repentance comes from the sinner, not from the forgiver.
As for “Apostacy”, “Heresy”, and “Schism” - don’t turn those words against me. They are deserving of penalties in the Canon
Law of the Church.
John Paul II wrote his letter “Ecclesia Dei”. It was he who accused the followers of Lefebre of ‘schism’ as defined in the Code, and who confirmed the ‘ferendae sententiae’ penalties on them.
Archbishop Lefebre is not the victim. He did a deliberate act to take his group out of the Church, and he thereby garnered the penalty of the Church for that.
I pray for these dissents daily. Maybe you are holier than me, but don’t blame me for these reactionaries’ actions.
I share no blame; I pray for their return. I put up with their jibes and attacks. (“I will pin your tail to the wall”). Did you defend me against Gerard for his ill-temperate remarks?
Peace.
peace
I do not believe you will not find one Church document that calls Arch. Lefebvre/SSPX heretics or worse – apostates. This is of your own doing. You have taken it upon yourself to do what the Church has not. So don’t use the Church as your bandwagon --for you — yourself are usurping Her authority.
M
mgrfin
Guest
I fully expect you to attack me, attack, attack, attack.
I do not believe you will not find one Church document that calls Arch. Lefebvre/SSPX heretics or worse – apostates. This is of your own doing. You have taken it upon yourself to do what the Church has not. So don’t use the Church as your bandwagon --for you — yourself are usurping Her authority.
Lefebre was a schismatic. That is what John Paul II called him.
If you deny a dogma of the faith, that is heresy - that is what he did. He denied the authority of the Church, that is apostacy.
It doesn’t matter what name you want to call him, and his followers, they certainly were not Roman Catholics any longer.
I don’t have to defend Lefebre, or even waste my time on him. He died without repentance to the Church - he died outside the Church. May God have mercy on his soul.
Call me whatever names you want. Threaten me. I am unfeeling toward anything you have to say about me, and my defense of JPII and his actions towards Lefrevre.
peace
S
stmaria
Guest
it is not necessary to have a degree in Latin or study the language to receive the grace from the TLM. I don’t see your point. I can go to the OF of the Mass in Spanish even though I don’t speak Spanish and I know exactly what is going on.=mgrfin;3291007]I am happy you understand every word that is spoken in the Mass. You have a degree in Latin? How many years did you study the language?
.Latin is not the language of the angels. The angels don’t communicate in language, which is spoken
Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
- It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.** We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. **We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
- We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that** language of the angels?** We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I fully expect you to attack me, attack, attack, attack.
Lefebre was a schismatic. That is what John Paul II called him.
If you deny a dogma of the faith, that is heresy - that is what he did. He denied the authority of the Church, that is apostacy.
It doesn’t matter what name you want to call him, and his followers, they certainly were not Roman Catholics any longer.
I don’t have to defend Lefebre, or even waste my time on him. He died without repentance to the Church - he died outside the Church. May God have mercy on his soul.
Call me whatever names you want. Threaten me. I am unfeeling toward anything you have to say about me, and my defense of JPII and his actions towards Lefrevre.
peace
Again — you are taking it upon yourself to do what the Church has not. And your go further to declare on the state of his soul at death. By your words – not only have you declared yourself the Church – but God too.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Paul VI would regret those words today.it is not necessary to have a degree in Latin or study the language to receive the grace from the TLM. I don’t see your point. I can go to the OF of the Mass in Spanish even though I don’t speak Spanish and I know exactly what is going on.
.
Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
- It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin.** We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. **We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
- We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that** language of the angels?** We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
The prayer of the people should be in the language of the people.
I can know physically what is going on, but why must I struggle to understand what is being said. Faith comes from hearing - if you can’t ‘hear’ what faith is being produced.
Hang your hat on what Paul said. He was being sentimental. He was trying to assuage the feelings fo Traditionalists.
What language the Mass is said in is no reason for a group of people to leave the Church, like Archbishop Lefebre, and to do disobedient acts. If Paul know what Lefebre would do, he would never utter one word that he spoke in that audience.
I don’t believe Latin is the language of the Angels, or of God. Nice poetic statement, that we used to say when Latin was the Language of the Mass, where the faithful didn’t hear and understand what was being said.
You have the TLM today if it appeals to you. No need to be schimatic about it.
peace
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
Another attack.
Again — you are taking it upon yourself to do what the Church has not. And your go further to declare on the state of his soul at death. By your words – not only have you declared yourself the Church – but God too.
I am not God, and I am not the Judge.
But Lefebre died outside of the Church. He was not reconciled to the Church when he died.
Do you deny that he was a schismatic? This is a legal reality. Do you deny it?
peace
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Another attack.
I am not God, and I am not the Judge.
But Lefebre died outside of the Church. He was not reconciled to the Church when he died.
Do you deny that he was a schismatic? This is a legal reality. Do you deny it?
peace
Quote=mgrfin
He died without repentance to the Church - he died outside the Church.
Your own words bear witness.
M
mgrfin
Guest
What’s your point?
He was a schismatic. Define Schismatic. Tell us all that he died reconciled to the Church? Tell us he ordered his followers to return to the Church?
You are here to attack? or to move the movement back to the Roman Catholic Church?
You have added nothing to this discussion. You have not told us one thing that the followers of Lefreve have accomplished by their leaving the Church.
I don’t believe you will answer any of the questions, cause it will mean that the ultra conservatives, the reactionaries, the right to the right will ever admit they did something wrong.
In the Church we call that obstinacy, and refusal to repent.
Be that as it may. They are responsible for all their actions. Attacking Roman Catholics, those in the Church, accomplishes nothing.
We will continue to pray for their return.
peace
S
stmaria
Guest
=mgrfin;3291383].
Latin really isn’t the entire issue. The New Mass removed or suppressed 70% of the prayers of the TLM. It is all the other changes also. Communion in the hand etc.What language the Mass is said in is no reason for a group of people to leave the Church, like Archbishop Lefebre, and to do disobedient acts. If Paul know what Lefebre would do, he would never utter one word that he spoke in that audience.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not against changes in the Mass. he wrote about it. You should read “* A Bishop Speaks*” where he says, " The first part of the Mass, intended for the instruction of the Faithful…clearly stood in need of a means of achieving these ends more plainly and in some way, more intelliglbly. In my humble opinion, two of the reforms proposed for this purpose appeared useful; first the rites of this first part and** some vernacular translations."**
By the way. Lefebvre **voted for **the Constitution on the Liturgy.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Quote=mgrfin
He died without repentance to the Church - he died outside the Church.
Quote=mgrfin
am not God, and I am not the Judge
Your own words bear witness.
What’s your point?
He was a schismatic. Define Schismatic. Tell us all that he died reconciled to the Church. Tell us he ordered his followers to return to the Church.
You are here to attack, or to move the movement back to the Roman Catholic Church.
What is my pt? — You bear witness to my pt. I do not attack —I respond to what you – yourself have stated.
M
mgrfin
Guest
I attend a version of the Latin Mass, 1964. I love the Canon of the Mass in Latin. I find it personally very powerful. My Missale Romanum was published in 1964; I treasure it. I have a Lectionary in English, which I also treasure. It is 1970 edition.Latin really isn’t the entire issue. The New Mass removed or suppressed 70% of the prayers of the TLM. It is all the other changes also. Communion in the hand etc.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not against changes in the Mass. he wrote about it. You should read “* A Bishop Speaks*” where he says, " The first part of the Mass, intended for the instruction of the Faithful…clearly stood in need of a means of achieving these ends more plainly and in some way, more intelliglbly. In my humble opinion, two of the reforms proposed for this purpose appeared useful; first the rites of this first part and** some vernacular translations."**
By the way. Lefebvre **voted for **the Constitution on the Liturgy.
I ‘steal’ a “Seasonal Missalette” with readings, etc., which are current from my local parish church.
In the old days, the readings were in Latin. St. Paul is difficult enough in English - In latin, it is nearly impossible…
Faith comes from hearing. I hear in Latin, and in English. I believe as a result.
Yeah, Lefebre was against ‘ecumenism’, like converting souls to the one true Church was never on our minds. Evangelization was the mission Christ gave to his Apostles and to his Church. It wasn’t his brand of ‘evangelism’. So, who was he to tell the Roman Catholic Church, neglect Evangelism, Ecumenism, and do it his way.
Sorry. Others knew better. He has accomplished nothing by his schism.
It was most painful for John Paul II to write the letter, and sign it, casting Lefebre and his followers out of the Church. But sign it he did, and issued it. He had ample warning, and he never returned.
God have mercy on him.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, I don’t know what your point is. Bear witness to it, and tell us what is your point.
What is my pt? — You bear witness to my pt. I do not attack —I respond to what you – yourself have stated.
peace
G
GerardP
Guest
As Cardinal Castrillon has pointed out JPII said it was “a schismatic act” not “an act of schism”. That actually is a proper interpretation including all relevant canon laws. If LeFebvre had not done the consecrations believing the Church in a state of necessity, it might have been an act of schism. But it wasn’t.Lefebre was a schismatic. That is what John Paul II called him.
Nonsense. You are equating disobedience with denial of authority. LeFebvre was disobedient and rightly so. The injustices done to the faithful by liberals who were allowed to act while JPII did nothing to defend the deposit of faith, the liturgy or the faithful warranted disobedience.If you deny a dogma of the faith, that is heresy - that is what he did. He denied the authority of the Church, that is apostacy.
Sure they are and that’s why they are helping so many of the faithful, including priests who are assisting and getting assistance on the side.It doesn’t matter what name you want to call him, and his followers, they certainly were not Roman Catholics any longer.
St. Pius X said that the interior disposition of a man no man may know. Only God. JPII is guilty of this in his use of the word “implies in practice”. He should have said “can be inferred” but that was simply not plausible since it would have brought the objective reality into light.I don’t have to defend Lefebre, or even waste my time on him. He died without repentance to the Church - he died outside the Church. May God have mercy on his soul.
S
Sure
Guest
Despite his role on the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Card. Castrillon cannot authoritatively interpret Ecclesia Dei. As a legislative document, it is properly interpreted by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts which stated:As Cardinal Castrillon has pointed out JPII said it was “a schismatic act” not “an act of schism”. That actually is a proper interpretation including all relevant canon laws. If LeFebvre had not done the consecrations believing the Church in a state of necessity, it might have been an act of schism. But it wasn’t.
- From the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia dei” of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.
- In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act,” and no. 5. c) warns that a “formal adherence to the schism” (by which one must understand “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence “to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre” would bring with it.
This statement by the PCILT remains the latest authoritative statement by the Church on the Lefebvrist schism.
- Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.