Was the New Mass ever promulgated?

[TNT]

bear06:

It’s going to take me days to paw through this lengthy post but I’ll start by saying that this is just plain historically inaccurate. Yet another myth perpetuated by rad-Trads authors.​

envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

I’ll keep this short:
**From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popeguil.htm

---

**Warren H Carroll **(No Trad, He)

It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man** (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint**) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors**, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense**.

Hillaire Belloc (1936) (Before Trad was cool.) Also indicates no canonization of Liberius. In The Great Heresies

Liberius is also not indicated for sainthood by Fr Laux in Church History

Liberius is not found in any of my 3 books of Saints.

BUT: The Greeks say otherwise:

In the Greek Menology we read, at the 27th September, “The blessed Liberius, defender of the truth, was Bishop of Rome during the reign of Constantius. His zeal . . . . made him undertake the defence of the great Athanasius Then Liberius, who fought with his whole strength against the malice of the heretics, was exiled to Beræa in Thrace. But the Romans, who loved and honored him, remained faithful to him, and besought the Emperor to restore him. Liberius returned to Rome, where he died after wisely governing his flock.”

http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/librius1.htm A lengthy defense of Liberius By:
American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.8, 1883, pp.529-49

Point: This is NOT a Trad mantra.

 

[TNT]

itsjustdave1988:

…The folks at Campos figured it out, as have many SSPX priests who have entered into full communion with the Roman Pontiff. It’s baffling why the rest continue in the Novus Donatism.

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.
They began to practice rebaptism which was particularly troublesome to the church at the time and was condemned at the Synod of Arles in 314 .

**Question: Where did SSPX BEGIN any new practice?? **

Lefebvre is certainly a leper compared to:
KUNG
Rahner
Chenu
Schillebeeckx
Congar
All still honored as periti that guided VATII bishops… what a gang.

If I had to choose EITHER the teachings of the gang or Lefebvre, I would have choose the gang. The reason is simple, they are/were never excommunicated.
How about you all?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lefebvre and Kung, et. al. are two sides of the same disobedient coin.

Donatus believed the REST of the Church was in schism with him and his “remnant” of orthodox Christians. Where’s his movement today???

It’s an old argument, but an unconvincing one. There was never a heretical Roman Pontiff in the history of Christianity, and there never will be.

Lefebvrism would have us believe that the last three popes were heretics? What a bunch of rubbish. Lefebvrism will remain as convincing as that “remnant” of orthodoxy called Donatism, which has done so well all these centuries.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Where did SSPX BEGIN any new practice?? **

They assert that approved eccesiastical discipline such as universal canon law is harmful to the faithful. It’s far from a “new practice,” but more like a regurgitation of the Jansensist proposition already condemned by Pius VI in the 18th century. Such is the so-called “traditionalism” of Lefebvrism.

 

[TNT]

itsjustdave1988:

…It’s an old argument, but an unconvincing one. There was never a heretical Roman Pontiff in the history of Christianity, and there never will be.
.

Of course not, that’s why they took the papal oath, just for fun, as the possiblity of teaching heresy or diminishing the Deposit of Faith was “impossible”:

I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. "If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Ex-cathedra? NO.
Otherwise? Yes.
Unless throwing Honorius’ remains into the Tiber was part of his canonization.
And plenty more.
BTW:
I thought there was something familiar about this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=405781#post405781
re: Goofy universal teachers

 

[bear06]

TNT:

I’ll keep this short:
From: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popeguil.htm

---

**Warren H Carroll **(No Trad, He)

It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man** (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint**) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors**, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense**.

Hillaire Belloc (1936) (Before Trad was cool.) Also indicates no canonization of Liberius. In The Great Heresies

Liberius is also not indicated for sainthood by Fr Laux in Church History

Liberius is not found in any of my 3 books of Saints.

BUT: The Greeks say otherwise:

In the Greek Menology we read, at the 27th September, “The blessed Liberius, defender of the truth, was Bishop of Rome during the reign of Constantius. His zeal . . . . made him undertake the defence of the great Athanasius Then Liberius, who fought with his whole strength against the malice of the heretics, was exiled to Beræa in Thrace. But the Romans, who loved and honored him, remained faithful to him, and besought the Emperor to restore him. Liberius returned to Rome, where he died after wisely governing his flock.”

http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/librius1.htm A lengthy defense of Liberius By:
American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.8, 1883, pp.529-49

Point: This is NOT a Trad mantra.

Catholic historians seem to be at odds on Pope Liberius. However, the thing about Denzinger is that he uses an epistle from a pope that reigned 33 years after Pope Liberius. In fact, there are 2 other saints besides St. Anastasius who also speak favorably of Pope Liberius. It would seem that they would have a far better view than Belloc or Carroll.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Catholic historians seem to be at odds on Pope Liberius. However, the thing about Denzinger is that he uses an epistle from a pope that reigned 33 years after Pope Liberius. In fact, there are 2 other saints besides St. Anastasius who also speak favorably of Pope Liberius. It would seem that they would have a far better view than Belloc or Carroll.

Personally I like the guy. I just have other saints that I have to address before him. But you pray to him. I won’t tell anyone
Ps I think p. Damasus did not really like him. So, it will remain confused. That site in his defense was the best I’ve seen in modern writings.

 

[bear06]

By the way, the point of this excercise was to show that you can’t compare St. Athanasius to Lefebrve. Even the evidence you provided from Carroll and Belloc do not support this even if they could be historically accurate.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

By the way, the point of this excercise was to show that you can’t compare St. Athanasius to Lefebrve. Even the evidence you provided from Carroll and Belloc do not support this even if they could be historically accurate.

All I addressed was:
Mama Bear’s:

Yet another myth perpetuated by rad-Trads authors.

ps. You know by now that I am not picky about what thread I rant on.
Oh, yea……almost forgot my plenary indulgence.

 

[TNT]

**Where did SSPX BEGIN any new practice?? **

They assert that approved eccesiastical discipline such as** universal canon law is harmful** to the faithful. .

Actually, they maintain that universal canon law Promulgated by JPII is harmful to the faithful.
You are correct, as I said on the “2nd Vatican Council” thread.
IF that be true, then JPII is no pope…the SEDE’s maintain. That is more logical and in conformity than saying that JPII coded heresy in Universal Canon Law, but still, he’s the real pope…that is contradictory.

 

[RSiscoe]

How did this turn into an SSPX and Pope Liberius discussion? I did not write a defence is the SSPX? Nor did I say Pope Liberius was “unorthodox”. I simply wrote what the EWTN article that TNT posted said. And we can be certain that EWTN didn’t write what it did as a defence of the SSPX. THEY HATE THE SSPX, although they have great effection for their “seperated brethren” (Protestants) who hate the Catholic Church. Yet even EWTN said:
EWTN Article:

It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man** (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint**) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy,

at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. [so. maybe there is proof of the excommunication]… Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors… .When I wrote what they wrote, I am said to be repeating the same old worn out SSPX argument. Could it be that the “worn out SSPX argument” is historically true?

And the Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of at least 4 times that athanasius was exiled from his diocese:
Catholic Encyclopedia: "the exiled primate to return to his see; and **by the end of November of the same year Athanasius was once more established in his episcopal city… The old charges were refurbished with a graver ecclesiastical accusation added by way of rider. Athanasius had ignored the decision of a duly authorized synod. He had returned to his see without the summons of ecclesiastical authority (Apol. c. Ar., loc. cit.). … **On the night of 8 February, 356, while engaged in services in the Church of St. Thomas, a band of armed men burst in to secure his arrest (Apol. de Fuga, 24). It was the beginning of his third exile. … But in the following February Jovian died; **and in October, 364, Athanasius was once more an exile." ****

**Now, how about addressing my arguments against the New Mass, instead of changing the subject, and focusing on the SSPX and Pope Liberius?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TNT,

the possiblity of teaching heresy or diminishing the Deposit of Faith was “impossible”

Not impossible as a mere Catholic citizen, but certainly impossible when formally and universally teaching the Church from the chair of Peter, either solemnly or in his universal ordinary teachings.

As I see it …

One an take the sedavacantist view, which is most logical yet built upon a false premise that the Pauline Mass and the decrees of Vatican II ar evil.

Or, one can take the Lefebvrist view, which is most illogical AND built upon the same false premise above.

Or, one can take the Catholic view, which is built upon the historical teachings of the past 2000 years:

1. Ecumencial Councils are protected from doctrinal error, and approved eccesiastical discipline such as universal liturgical norms and universal canon law can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful.
2. Divine obedience can never prevent one from obedience to the Holy Father in his teachings and norms in 1) above. The more perfect the one, the more perfect the other.

I believe the latter to be the only view that is not an offense to faith and reason.

Theoretical possibility exists that a pope can be a manifest (ie. notorious or “obvious”) heretic as a private theologian, but the Holy Spirit prevents heresy in all solemn magisterial and universal ordinary magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff. Whether this theoretical possibility has ever happened has never been convincingly argued by any Catholic theologian. Fr. Cekada’s argument with regard to the evils of Vatican II and the Pauline Mass aren’t very compelling, as he sorta gives a “gut” instinct argument. He just knows in his gut, a private sense, that Vatican II and the Pauline Mass are evil, without actually proving it. The “manifest” part of the supposed heresy is certainly doubtful if not altogether ridiculous.

I’m no probabilist, like most liberal dissenters, sedavacantist and Lefebvrists seem to be. It’s a post-Trent casuistry that it also an offense to reason, in my view. I tend to be more probabiliorist, which holds that in matters of doubt, one ought to take the most probable path. Probablism says that a lesser probable path is licit, which to me goes against everything I’ve learned by reading the theology of St.Thomas Aquinas.

See more on probabilism here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Probabilism

Too me, the rather untraditional casuistry of probabilism is the root of all dissent within the Catholic Church in modern times. It is misused just as masterfully by the SSPX as it is by Fr. Kaufman in his dissent with the Catholic Church on contraception and abortion, among other things. See Fr. Kaufman’s chapter on probabilism from his book *Why You Can Disagree with the Catholic Church and Still Be Catholic, *here:
sja.osb.org/kaufman/chapter3.html

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TNT,

That is more logical and in conformity than saying that JPII coded heresy in Universal Canon Law, but still, he’s the real pope…that is contradictory.

Hey … we agree. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

How did this turn into an SSPX and Pope Liberius discussion?

You brought up the supposed excommunication St. Athanasius by Pope Liberius in response to my question regarding a Thomistic view regarding obedience to unlawful priests and excommunicated bishops.

My answer: St. Athanasius was never truly excommunicated, as he contended, and Pope Liberius (after the persecution ended) agreed.

Thus, this is a poor example of how the orthodox Catholic faithful ought to obey unlawful priests and excommunicated bishops.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For the record, I don’t hate the SSPX or sedevacantists who reject Vatican II, or the “Old Catholics” who rejected Vatican I, or any other wacky group that rejected every other Ecumenical Council. I simply believe their protestations are just as protestant and illogical as the Protestants.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for “manifest” or “notorious” hersy of the Roman Pontiff as a private theologian, I think this could only be “manifest” if the Roman Pontiff himself held a press conference and renounced his allegiance to the Catholic faith and joined a non-Catholic sect like the Anglicans, or something like that.

Otherwise, its obviousness, the element of “manifest” would always be doubftul, thereby lacking the very meaning of “manifest.” Simply asserting confidently that you disagree with the pope’s interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is insufficient to make a compelling case of “manifest heresy.” Catholic theologians insist that the pope cannot be judged but by God alone. So, the theoretical view that he can be a heretic isn’t well developed, having big gaping holes in the theory that are as of yet unresolved.

Fr. Cekada’s sedevacantist argument for “manifest heresy” of the Paul VI is based upon his private interpretation of both past and present teachings of the Catholic magisterium. It is no more compelling than the views of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who stubbornly insisted that the Catholic magisterium of his day corrupted the “true meaning” of immutable Catholic dogma. If one could take seriously Fr. Cekada’s argument against the supposed “manifest heretic” of Paul VI, then I don’t see why Feeneyists cannot do the same with regard to the “manifest heresy” of Pius XII.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

Thus, this is a poor example of how the orthodox Catholic faithful ought to obey unlawful priests and excommunicated bishops.

One very quick comment. When I have quoted St. Thomas saying “in the case of necessity there is no law”, I am applying it to Catholics attending a SSPX Church out of necessity. I am not using the quote of St. Thomas to justify the SSPX (in this example), only to justify a Catholic attending Mass there: those are two different issues.

Do you understand why I said that? Because you said it was a poor example of why a Catholic “ought to obey an unlawful and excommunicated bishop”. I am not referring to “obeying” the SSPX leadership, that’s another subject. I am using “necessity” as the reason I believe attendance at an SSPX Church is OK in our day of apostacy. “In the case of necessity there is no law”. I believe this justifies behavior that would normally not be allowed.

And you do know that John Paul II did not excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre, right? He merely declared that the Archbishop excommunicated himself - ipso facto: there is a difference, because in order to excommunicate oneself, they have to commit a subjective mortal sin (according to Canon law). I personally believe Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of necessity and thus did not commit a mortal sin (but let’s not get into that here, PLEASE). Of course, this is just a mere opinion, and I could be wrong. But regardless of whether or not he was truly excommunicated, it does not change my argument that a person can attend Mass at an SSPX Church due to the state of necessity today. Even Canon law allows for a Catholic to attend Mass at a schismatic Church (eastern orthodox), when necessity requires.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

One very quick comment. When I have quoted St. Thomas saying “in the case of necessity there is no law”, I am applying it to Catholics attending a SSPX Church out of necessity. I am not using the quote of St. Thomas to justify the SSPX (in this example), only to justify a Catholic attending Mass there: those are two different issues.

Do you understand why I said that? Because you said it was a poor example of why a Catholic “ought to obey an unlawful and excommunicated bishop”. I am not referring to “obeying” the SSPX leadership, that’s another subject. I am using “necessity” as the reason I believe attendance at an SSPX Church is OK in our day of apostacy. “In the case of necessity there is no law”. I believe this justifies behavior that would normally not be allowed.

But that’s just it: As has been well argued by Dave, the Church isn’t in apostacy…and It can’t be! Thus, no one has any excuse to go to an SSPX chapel. If there is no Catholic Church available, the obligation is lifted. You’re basically arguing that the Church is apostate, so don’t go to your local parish, go to the SSPX chapel.
You are encouraging schism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I agree that it is no more illicit to attend an SSPX Mass than to attend a Greek Orthodox liturgy, if *true *necessity exists.

Yet, as I think St. Thomas makes clear, “necessity” means there is NO TIME to consult lawful higher authorities, due to “sudden risk needing instant remedy” (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 96, 6) . So, if one is in grave danger of death, for example, by all means, any validly ordained priest can be licitly approach for the Holy Sacraments, even if they are schismatic. Yet, when there is time to obtain a dispensation by consulting higher authority, St. Thomas’ teaching in its context is that “necessity” is lacking and thus, the dispensation due to “necessity” is also lacking. In such cases, one objectively commits the sin of disobedience.

 

[RSiscoe]

JKirkLVNV:

But that’s just it: As has been well argued by Dave, the Church isn’t in apostacy…and It can’t be! Thus, no one has any excuse to go to an SSPX chapel. If there is no Catholic Church available, the obligation is lifted. You’re basically arguing that the Church is apostate, so don’t go to your local parish, go to the SSPX chapel.
You are encouraging schism.

The Chuch can never fall into apostacy, that is true. When I have has said I believe we are in a state of apostacy, I meant “churchmen” - the great majority of them - not the Church itself.

The Church itself is a perfect society “without spot or wrinkle”. However, churchmen (priests, Bishops, and higher) can fall into error, and most of them today have. Some of the very worst are leading the Church - Kasper, Mahony, etc, etc, etc,. The wolves are in charge today.

This is not without precident in the history of the Church. The Arian crisis was similar, just not nearly as severed. The following is what St. Basil wrote about those days:

St. Basil: "Our afflictions are well known without my telling; the sound of them has gone forth over all Christendom. The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set at nought; the discoveries of innovators hold sway in churches. Men have learned to be speculatists instead of theologians. The wisdom of the world has the place of honor, having dispossessed the glorying of the cross. The pastors are driven away. grievous wolves are brought in instead, and plunder the flock of Christ. --Epistulae (cf. Appendix V of John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century).

St. Basil: "The heresy long ago disseminated by that enemy of truth, Arius, grew to a shameless height and like a bitter root it is bearing its pernicious fruit and already gaining the upper hand since the standard-bearers of the true doctrine in the individual parishes have been driven from the churches by defamation and insult and the authority they were vested with has been handed over to such as captivate the hearts of the simple in mind. --Epistulae (371) The whole Church is in dissolution. --Epistulae, to St. Athanasius (371/72)

St. Basil: "The danger is not confined to one Church… This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord’s flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. --Epistulae 92 (ca. 372)

continue…