The Crisis is so sad.

[PeteC]

You surely must have heard of the infamous medieval Masses in which priests, capitalizing on the congregants' ignorance of Latin, exchanged the words of Consecration for a Latin version of "Bread thou art and bread thou shalt remain."  That's a fine means of leading souls to hell, worse than anything I've ever heard of taking place at a Novus Ordo.  At least you can catch an audible vernacular abuse.

No, I have never heard of this before you wrote it here.  Furthermore, while I believe that an individual heretic Priest may have doen something like this here and there, I do not believe your implication that this was a common or widespread practice. I think this is nothing more than an urban legend.  

In any case, your comparison does not hold.  Anyone who does know latin (and it really isn't that hard) would know immediately that that what the Priest said was wrong.  Even if a person doesn't know latin, it would be easy to catch something like this.  You really have a condescending attitude of the "medieval" person.  Do you honestly think that nobody woud say "Hey, I do not know what those words mean, but Father just said something different from what he has said every Sunday for the past ten years"

 

Er.....IF it did in fact take place during the Canon it would be said secretly. In the very least definitely not audible to those outside the altar.

[CampeadorShin]

The gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church, but they are causing much damage.

If the Archbishop hadn't acted?  Who knows.  Through the Archbishop's action Tradition has been preserved.  Though it is only a remnant.  But restoration will come and Russia will be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart.

Its inevitable.  

[Vincentius]

 

 

The maxim "lex suprema salus animarum est" has been bandied and tossed around in this forum but it appears that hardly anybody takes its meaning seriously. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Period. When the Church ceases in this mission she is no longer the true Church of Christ.

 

And (I think we've up to 7-8 as to how many times this question has been posed, still unreplied to), in what way and at what time did the Church abandon Her mission of saving souls?

 

Let's see, this shouldn't be very difficult to pinpoint.   How about just one among several, ecumenism of the false kind.  No need to elaborate on this.  It's the foremost and primus agenda being pushed.

 

It sounds like you might want to rephrase your formulation of the law "The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls" to "The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls...according to the definition which Archbishop Lefebvre assigns to "the salvation of souls." 

I never said that.  Besides, you're getting too personal in your dislike for the archbishop.

If we extrapolate just a little but, you end up saying that souls cannot be saved if they attend the Novus Ordo.  Can they be misled?  Sure.  Can they fall prey to invalid Masses?  Certainly.

 

Again, you misread what I said.

You surely must have heard of the infamous medieval Masses in which priests, capitalizing on the congregants' ignorance of Latin, exchanged the words of Consecration for a Latin version of "Bread thou art and bread thou shalt remain."  That's a fine means of leading souls to hell, worse than anything I've ever heard of taking place at a Novus Ordo.  At least you can catch an audible vernacular abuse. 

 

Nope, never heard of anything like that.  Now I'm wondering where you picked up this nonsensical blather.  But I can only think of one place -- Chick Comics.  It's these folks who denigrate the Church -- folks who coined the phrase "hocus pocus" which makes slanderous fun of Words of Institution, "Hoc est Corpus Meam," which goes on to say some kind of magic is going on at the altar.   Your above quote can come only from anti-Catholic circles.

The whole of the Catholic belief and teaching -- well, okay, 90% -- has been made new. Right or wrong?

You tell me.  What Church teaching used to profess A and now professes B, where B does not equal A?  Has the Church declared in the last 40 years that Christ is somehow less God than He was before?  Has She declared that the Immaculate Mother is no longer theotokos?  That the Mass is no longer a Sacrifice?

 

Nope nothing of the sort, although the thing about "the Mass no longer being a Sacrifice" is one.  One of the six Protestants consulted regarding the new Mass (he eventually became Catholic) said, "This Mass will no longer pose obstacles to the Protestant."  The main objection to the Mass was its sacrificial intention.

You need to pull up one example, and only one, and then your statements would carry some weight.  But you haven't done that.

 

I posed the question which required some answers, not the other way around.  Come on, Mike, let's not argue from emotions

[MundaCorMeum]

See the evidence above. It seems to point to an obvious conclusion which you are free to reject, at the risk of seeming imprudent.

 

That's a dodge.  Say yes if you mean yes and no if you mean no

It's marginally amusing and highly ironic that, above, you've hinted at my perilous proximity to judging someone's interior disposition before proceeding to inform me of what my attitude is regarding medieval people.

 

Point taken.  I would think, though, that for your claim regarding medieval Masses to be true it would require tremendous ignorance on the part of the faithful not just of the Latin language but of the Mass and Faith itself

Whether or not it happened in wide numbers, I have no idea, and that it is not the point.

 

You have no idea if it happened at all.  Instead, you are repeating a dubious statement supposedly made by Luther - a known heretic and liar -  as if it were true.  All to make an even more dubious point that todays NO Mass is no more prone to abuse than the Latin Mass

 

 As to the Church's intent, Her intent has always been to confect valid Sacraments. The individual priests? Pray to God that theirs is the same as Hers.

 

And how do we know the Church's intent.  How can we be at least reasonably sure that the individual Priest intends to do what the Church intends?

 

We know these things by the Rite that the Church promulgates and whether the individual priest follows the rite.  I submit to you , that the New Rite is so confusing and (some would say deliberately) vague that its hard to tell.  We really don't know if a Priest in a tutu and leotards clapping cymbals and chanting Kum bay Ya is really deviating from the approved rite after all.

 

[Ginette]

[

QUOTE] Originally Posted by HMiS

To incur excommunication, one must not be able to appeal to a state of necessity or grave fear (which was probable and in fact proven in case of Lefebvre

).

 

This is the flimsy card which props up the house, and it's easily blown over

.

[/QUOTE]

 

OK MikeO....I will tell you about a state of necessity!  Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the way things were heading.

You spoke about the FSSP. Are you aware that the FSSP needs the permission of a bishop of a diocese to be there in the first place. Are you aware that even if a bishop reluctantly gives permission for the FSSP in a diocese that he may refuse permission for the other sacraments (apart from the Mass) in the Traditional Rite? Now what if you live in a country as I do, where the FSSP has been consistently refused permission to enter, where there is a weekly Indult Mass allowed in two dioceses only? Where there is no access whatsoever to the traditional sacraments but for the SSPX? And why is this? Because they do not have to ask the bishop's permission. If they did, they wouldn't be here.

This Easter an Augustinian priest 'concelebrated' the Vigil with his Protestant 'colleague' with great applause from the congregation. Our children are being taught blatant heresy in our 'Catholic' schools with the full support of our great shepherds who actually put it there.

So when you ask for an example - when did the church teach A and now it's teaching B - are the bishops of my country not the Church? They are teaching children to 'pray' to plasticene figures called 'Little Beings' and to learn the Earth Commandments, newly invented. Yes, there are souls being led to hell and yes the SSPX thanks to Marcel Lefebvre is saving many souls in what used to be 'holy, Catholic Ireland.'

Lex suprema salus animarum est.  Please God one day the Church will recognise the saintly work of the SSPX.

[HMiS]

Latern IV's anathema regarding those who deny transubstantiation.

I'm sure someone might retort with how terrible the music is at their local Novus Ordo, or how that female lector shouldn't be reading the Epistle and so--because of that--the Holy Sacrament just "can't!" be valid, but alas; Latern IV expressed a different view.

 

Yes, Lantern IV. Latern IV?

 

That's pure spin. I have never before heard of this nebulous "intrinsic good" of which you are speaking.

 

If you had read Canon Law, of which you obviously don't know a thing, you would have known what I was talking about.

 

And are you now alleging that the ordination of bishops is intrinsically evil?

 

First get your spelling and knowledge right, then I will discuss with you about the SSPX. Until then, I demand you respect the forum rules which do not allow for SSPX Bashing. Such a thing you can do with Karl Keating, Stephen Hand and the embittered Loughnan crowd.

 

Just for your historical memory:

 

Before July 11, 1988, that is: two weeks after the episcopal consecrations, there was no FSSP whatsoever.

 

Your application of a condemnation against those who deny transsubstantiation (sic!) in the SSPX case, illustrates your whole disability and total, astonishing lack of knowledge in theological matters. I suggest you first address your local Novus Ordo parish priest about "Lantern IV", before mowing down the SSPXers over here.

[HMiS]

Indeed, there is a big difference between Archbishop Lefebvre and Martin Luther. Luther agreed to be tried, but then rejected the results of the trial. Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to a canonical trial, to show the truth that he was truly excommunicated or not. But he never was answered to, or given any benefit of the doubt.

 

Another good observation indeed.

 

In fact, there could not be two poles more opposite than Lefebvre and Luther. Lefebvre was the one to attack Luther and condemn him in an era, in which Pope John Paul II betrayed the history of the Catholic Church by calling Martin Luther a "profound religious spirit". (Pulpit of a Protestant Lutheran "parish" church, November 17, 1980, Papal Visit to West Germany) . It is audacious and cunning to compare them, but it is grossly incorrect. And the enemies of Lefebvre know the "Lefebvrists" hate Luther and to be compaired with this archheretic.

 

Again Luther was an heretic, Lefebvre wanted just to continue what the Church had done always, and wanted to ordain a (sacramental) bishop.

[HMiS]

Lumen,

 

1. Where did Pius XII teach ordaining bishops is intrinsically evil?

 

2. Any Chinese Bishop who would have ordained the Patriotic bishops in 1957 under pressure and threats of being shot or arrested, would in fact not have incurred the penalty of excommunication, and if he would openly say he was forced, the penalty against him would be lifted. Such things happened in the past. Well, Abp. Lefebvre has to be absolved, as he acted under grave fear too.

 

3. Pius XII did not alter the Code of Canon Law for ordaining bishops illicitly (which was punished by suspension), but JP II did so. The excommunications against the Chinesese were designed to punish their intentions, which were evil and intended to creat a jurisdiction-usurping schismatic monster, not to sustain a priestly society.

 

[Mark]

This is a good discussion. I've learned much from reading this.

 

One thing I am convinced of is there are more then meets the eye with the case of Lefebvre. On the one hand obedience to the Pope is of paramount importance. On the other hand a pope can act on faulty information or err in his prudential judgements. It seems to me that some prelates were feeding Pope Paul VI with phony information about the SSPX and made him believe that Lefebvre made his priests take an oath against the Pope, and that makes me wonder if they did the same to Pope JPII, who knows and we may never know all the details.

 

But one thing I do know is that the Pope only has the authority to build up the Faith - to build the Church, not to degrade or destroy it.

 

But in my own - and just my speculation - The 64,000 question for me is what would drive such an obedient servant of the Church, who was highly favored by Pope Pius XII, and who was probably the greatest missionary of the 20th century, to do what he did? Before his retirement in the 60's he should have been made a Cardinal for all his accomplishments. And in this I am only trying to get into his mind - what made him 'tick'

 

It seems that even in the mid 1970's Lefebvre was becoming increasingly alarmed as is evident from his letters and meeting with Pope Paul VI and other prelates, and as things in the Church degraded even further along until finally Assisi in the mid 1980's, the he became extremely alarmed, freaked out actually. By this time he had been promised a bishop for years and it kept being taken back. By this time his health was deteriorating rapidly and could have further increased his alarm. Now I am not justifying what Lefebvre did,because obedience to the Pope is of PARAMOUNT importance and it's something I care never to act against. But one thing I remember, and this is from bishop Fellay's own words, that they [the SSPX] "are in a canonically irregular status". And this is not good.

 

What I have said was not intended to be an apology for what Lefebvre did, but more of a playing a 'devil's advocate', because this case mystifies me. I see so much good they have done and do, but at the same time they are at least in an irregular status with Rome. I think the bottom line was expressed well by von Hildebrand who said this crisis is unique, and the worst the Church has ever faced, even worse than the Arian crisis. And we have to keep this in mind when discussing and speculating on issues such as these. What I think is most lamentable, but understandable, is the failure of so many Catholic to recognize the current crisis and how serious it really is. We need to really learn our faith and keep our wits about us.

 

I think what is most important is that we pray VERY much, especially for the Pope and the Bishops. Prayer and penance will hasten an end to the crisis.

 

 

 

 

[ChantCd]

I can never begin to catch up in this discussion, so I'll only add one thing.

 

You can't compare Abp. Lefebvre to Luther or anyone else condemned (or excommunicated) by the Church, for this reason alone -- he never got a trial, fair or otherwise!

 

Every time he had the chance he asked to go to Rome, and have a fair hearing for the case of Tradition. He wanted to figure out, once and for all, who it was that was wrong! This is something not brought up as often in these discussions, but the Archbishop went through all the normal channels, writing dozens of letters in the most humble language, asking how Vatican II could be reconciled with past councils, etc.

 

It's obvious why he was never given any kind of hearing -- Tradition (which is almost a synonym for the Faith) would have been 100% on his side, and the opposition would have looked like a heretical sect of some sort. So it's not surprising why he received silence, unanswered letters, condemnation, and no more.

 

A pope writing "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" (judging based on erroneous opinion, for all we know) is not the same as having a trial for the man about to be condemned. Even Luther received that courtesy! (the Diet of Worms)

 

This must be kept in mind.

 

In Christ,

 

Matthew