Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
To be more precise. An altar boy who learned his Latin as far back as the One, Holy , Roman Catholic Church,started the Latin Masses...was able to serve the same way in the same Mass anywhere in the globe.,because the Mass was the same .Church laws were the same, and that is what is meant by One,Holy Catholic and Apostalic.
The issue is if the N.O. is in need of re-Ordaining the N.O. priests, who wish only to return to
the Old Latin Mass.And I still say these priests should be treated as converts and re-do all, the Traditional way to be sure of validity, of their Mass and their Sacraments for the sake of the souls of the flock they will be tending.
Pius X Society- are not in Schism- this is only a word spread
to throw people off. Get the facts.
They never formed their own Cathoilc Church, they do pray for the Pope and all of Rome ect- all they did was preserve
the Old Latin Mass which is perfectly in accordance with the Laws of the Catholic Church.
If Lefebvre, did not take this stand in the matter of the Faith and the Latin Mass and go all the way to be assured that this Mass would continue FULLY after his death, knowing the N.O. was crumbling the Faith and everything with it,he would have to answer before God for neglecting his duties as a shepherd of Christ.
"A difference between SSPX and Eastern Orthodoxy requiring different treatment is that the ancient claims of of Eastern Orthodoxy as to denial of papal authority over them are advanced respectfully and in civilized tones."
I have seen several Orthodox attacks on papal authority. One such attack about two years ago was that of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II who accused the Vatican of engaging "in a ‘propagandistic cover-up’ of efforts to undermine the Orthodox faith in Russia."
Your arguments have made it quite clear that you are quite disdainful of the SSPX. Although you appear to be displeased with "...the late and unlamented Bernardin, the spaghetti-spined Cardinal McCarrick, Lavender Rembert, Fiorenza, Mahoney, Flynn, and most of the Jadot bishops and their ilk...", I have not seen you refer to them as heretics or scismatics, even though their actions and directives are far more outrageous than anything seen from the SSPX folks. These bishops have control of the religious and liturgical lives of many tens of millions of Catholics. I have yet to see disbelief of and didain for the basics of our faith from the very few SSPX folks around. I see and hear, almost weekly, cleverly worded disbelief of and didain for the basics of our faith in the sermons of our modernist pastors, the words of the OCP songs sung in our churches, and the columns written in our diocesan newspapers.
I am a heck of a lot more worried about the very real heretics and scismatics, technically "in communion", than I am about the relatively miniscule SSPX or even the orthodox.
Christ guaranteed to be with the Church not with Marcel's nastily abusive little schism. There is a Catholic cult all right. It is called the Roman Catholic CHURCH and it is headquartered in the Vatican and it is led by the Vicar of Christ on Earth not some pack of excommunicated bishops and schismatic priests.
I am no more going to debate you on the specifics than I am going to indulge a communist on economics, a John Kerry on patriotism, or Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist on public morality. Whatever could there be to argue? In each case, there is a very clear right and a very clear wrong. The cult of arcel the disobedient, excommunicated and now dead is on the wrong side, clearly. If you belong to it, then thank God for a merciful man like JP II. A less restrained man would make the schismatics eat the dust of the earth if they choose to slither back to Holy Mother the Church and would demand full public recantation and would demand public penance. You guys (if you are adhering to SSPX) or those guys (if you are not) should make their deal now and submit. The next pope will be a lot less likely to put up with the used food that is the SSPX schism.
I will answer one specific of your post. Can you identify even one licitly ordained Roman Catholic priest who has EVER said a Novus Ordo Mass AS A LUTHERAN? I didn't think so.
I will answer another: I do not have to doctrinally prove anything. The burden is on the schismatics to justify themselves to the satisfaction of the pope. They have not and I am not holding my breath.
Here's another: Platitudes???? OK. Blessed are the reflexively obedient to the papacy for they have some shot at being Catholic unlike those who spend their lives libeling His Holiness and attacking the institutional Church and trying to delude others into believing that it is the Church and the pope have apostasized instead of the schism and its excommunicated leaders.
Remember, my Church, the one to which you may have belonged if and when not mred in the Marcellian schism is the Roman Catholic Church. It is a monarchy, as it should be. It is NOT a debating society. It is NOT an anarchy in the pews. It is NOT a polling agency. It is NOT a cafeteria. It never was and, whatever nutcase excommunicated bishops like Fellay and Williamson may preen themselves to presume, it NEVER will be.
Bugnini was a Mason, a snake, and a sinner. What else is new? Christ still protects His Church which is NOT Marcel's schism.
You are effectively calling His Holiness a modernist heretic. We will leave that aside as being as ridiculous as anything else emanating from the schism. In Catholic culture, UBI PETRUS IBI ECCLESIA now, then and forever! If Catholics need schismatic fallacies, opinions or buttinskis, we will be sure to let the schismatics know. p> Oh, as to my "apparent dislike" of the late archschismatic Lefebvre, I don't dislike him. I despise him and many (not all) who have been gullible enough to chug his laced spiritual kool aid by the gallon. One reason was that I once considered becoming one of his schismatics before coming to my Catholic senses. I also considered Russian Orthodoxy but they, at least, are honest folk. My tastes are offended to but I grew up and got over it.
It no more matters whether positions taken by SSPX schismatics and excommunicati violate promises of Christ than it would mater whether Charles Manson does so. What do such questions mean? You cannot violate Christ's promises. All that is relevant as to Christ's promises is that He made them and He will keep them and that we are to belong to the Church He founded (Rome/Vatican/JP II at the moment) and obey legitimate Church authority such as: The Vicar of Christ on Earth, not some illicitly consecrated but licitly excommunicated rebel schismatic bishops.
As to the miscreants cited in your third paragraph derived from my previous post, I am waiting for His Holiness to adjudge them in schism and excommunicated. When he does, I will sing in his choir on each and every one so adjudged. In the meantime, I will continue in respectful reticence and not harangue His Holiness to submit to the Magisterium of me. SSPX ought do likewise but I don't think they have it in them.
If you are ever elected pope, you really ought to declare their schisms and excommunicate those still living. I will be delighted to back your move. Meanwhile, such declarations are far above my job description and yours. I do not "appear to be displeased" with anyone on that list. I despise each and every one and many more and would gladly witness them roasting on an open fire after a verrrrry brief traditional, ummmmm, inquiry. Enough of nostalgia for the good old days.
I'd like to see the proof of doctrinally strict Lutherans using the 1970MR. Seriously - what the heck are Lutherans doing praying to the saints, or for the dead, or offering the consecrated elements as a sacrifice? Those are all totally contrary to Lutheranism.
Oh, and if you read Saepius Officio by the Anglican Archbishops of York and Canterbury, they claim that the Roman Canon contradicts the Council of Trent and teaches Protestant theology. So even if Lutherans did have no problem with the 1970MR, it proves nothing - since Prots can also distort the 1962MR.
Further, since the Pope reminds us somewhat severely of "the necessary connection between faith and worship, between the law of believing and the law of praying," it seems fair to call closer attention, both on your part and ours, to the Roman Liturgy. And when we look carefully into the "Canon of the Mass," what do we see clearly exhibited there as to the idea of sacrifice? It agrees sufficiently with our Eucharistic formularies, but scarcely or not at all with the determinations of the Council of Trent.
As I often post, I am merely a street-fightng elk. You want intellectual debate.
Not necessarily. I wanted to see if there was anything of substance behind your venom.
I will not agree with the schismatic cult of rebellious Marcel unless and until the pope changes his mind.
Ah. So reality is dependent upon the will and whims of the Pope. He tells you the sky is plaid, that's good enough for you. Sorry but Catholicism doesn't teach that. It's not good enough for God and you'll be held accountable.
His word and rule are good enough for me but, apparently, not for the gullible taste-offended platoon of Marcel.
As opposed to the tasteful and well-catechized Novus Ordo apparatus? Cain and Abel ran into a similar scenario when it came to making offerings to God.
I was brought up and instructed by my pre-Vatican II teachers not to have much use for Luther for much the same reasons.
Well, then they didn't teach you very well. Luther denied doctrine and fomented denial of the Church's priveleges and rights itself. The conciliarists of today in positions of power are much closer to Luther's vision of the Church than LeFebvre's.
Christ guaranteed to be with the Church not with Marcel's nastily abusive little schism.
Two Points: You fail to explain what "with the Church" actually means. However you cannot prove that LeFebvre objectively was schismatic. Schismatic was given a new definition by JPII with regards to LeFebvre. If LeFebvre is not schismatic it could very well be argued that Christ raised him up in defiance of his faithless bishops and provided the vehicle to protect and defend the Church.
There is a Catholic cult all right. It is called the Roman Catholic CHURCH and it is headquartered in the Vatican and it is led by the Vicar of Christ on Earth not some pack of excommunicated bishops and schismatic priests.
Yet you seem to think there is some kind of dogma that the Pope is guaranteed to lead it well and won't be an absolute intellectual fool as well as a fair weather politician and lousy communicator. Last time I checked, it was only one bishop who stood with Christ at the Cross. And it wasn't his appointed Vicar.
Your platitudes are non-Catholic. What you are imbibing in is the post-conciliar cult of the 1960's that is designed to prevent you from actually facing the reality of what the Church is, what the parameters are that God gave it and what your obligations are you to defend it against the very novelties that "good enough for you". Sorry, God has a slightly higher standard.
I am no more going to debate you on the specifics than I am going to indulge a communist on economics, a John Kerry on patriotism, or Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist on public morality.
You won't debate me on doctrine because you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm just pointing a little light on your tirade so people reading won't be mislead to think you have any truth behind you.
Whatever could there be to argue?
Doctrine. Real doctrine and not the manufactured sort that the neos resort to.
In each case, there is a very clear right and a very clear wrong.
Yes there is. Unfortunately your formulation doesn't correspond to reality.
The cult of arcel the disobedient, excommunicated and now dead is on the wrong side, clearly.
Why do you say that? If you could begin to support this point, you might have a leg to stand on.
If you belong to it, then thank God for a merciful man like JPII.
What makes you think he's merciful? He's tortured and failed millions of catholics with his lack of action and lack of defense of orthodoxy. That is reality as opposed to puffed up melodrama of how great he is.
A less restrained man would make the schismatics eat the dust of the earth if they choose to slither back to Holy Mother the Church and would demand full public recantation and would demand public penance.
That would simply be another sin on the part of the Pope. You can't point to an error for the SSPX to recant to. A strong Pope would know what a real schismatic is and actually exercise his authority. JPII's restraint is confined to restraining any attempt at promoting catholicism.
You guys (if you are adhering to SSPX) or those guys (if you are not) should make their deal now and submit.
What kind of "deal" would you suggest? Not defend the faith against heretics like Mahoney?
The next pope will be a lot less likely to put up with the used food that is the SSPX schism.
The next pope if he follows JPII will be even more useless unless he is a clear thinking traditional Pope. He will be "open to the new situation" regarding papal primacy that JPII refers to open-endedly in Ut Unum Sint.
I will answer one specific of your post. Can you identify even one licitly ordained Roman Catholic priest who has EVER said a Novus Ordo Mass AS A LUTHERAN? I didn't think so.
Hard to tell with so many ecumenical gatherings. I believe there have actually been concelebrations between Catholics and Lutherans with each group communicating with their own priest or pastor. A nice equal footing, wouldn't you say? Good thing some can think of the Mass as a sacrifice and others don't. A more accurate assessment of my question is why are Lutherans saying the Novus Ordo and not finding it intrinsically Roman Catholic? I doubt you'll answer even though you know the reason.
I will answer another: I do not have to doctrinally prove anything.
Sure you do. You make the accusation against the SSPX. Prove it. Just because a Pope says something does not make it true. That is reality.
The burden is on the schismatics to justify themselves to the satisfaction of the pope.
The burden is on the Pope to justify his actions before the truth. Objectively, the Pope is wrong. He accuses them of schism. He has not demonstrated the truth of his statements. The SSPX are simply a reaction to his bad governance and malfeasance.
They have not and I am not holding my breath.
He has not corrected himself and your not holding your breath for that either.
Platitudes???? OK. Blessed are the reflexively obedient to the papacy
Culpable are those that know better than servile obedience.
for they have some shot at being Catholic
for they are denying the truth against God himself.
unlike those who spend their lives libeling His Holiness
Nonsense. It's not libeling if it's true.
and attacking the institutional Church
Nope. defending the institutions from the dismantling of the Church organization by the Shepherds that are truly Wolves who are within the Church. LeFebvre and the SSPX didn't write Ut Unum Sint.
and trying to delude others into believing that it is the Church and the pope have apostasized instead of the schism and its excommunicated leaders.
Simple: Prove that it's impossible for the bishops and Popes to have done the damage that the SSPX and others have stated they have done. If you can't, it's obvious that your tirade is an emotional "head in the sand" reaction and you have no right to criticize those that have more guts to face reality than you do.
Remember, my Church, the one to which you may have belonged if and when not mred in the Marcellian schism is the Roman Catholic Church.
Which part of it are you in though? The whaet or the tares?
It is a monarchy, as it should be.
Yes but the monarch doesn't have power over the Truth. Monarchs can be tyrants. Monarchs can attempt to destroy their kingdoms.
It is NOT a debating society.
Tell that to the Cardinals. You might also want to prove your point with a doctrinal point. The SSPX want to clarify doctrinal issues. It's Rome that wants to debate legal status.
It is NOT an anarchy in the pews.
But it is. Just look at the abominable papal Masses, the charismatics, the banal liturgies etc.
It is NOT a polling agency.
Tell JPII.
It is NOT a cafeteria.
It's the Table of the Lord! Right next to the cold cuts. Celebrating the Springtime of Vatican II. It's unity in diversity! It's a cafeteria to JPII's favorite phrase "in a special way.." but not a cafeteria in another way. Got it?
It never was and, whatever nutcase excommunicated bishops like Fellay and Williamson may preen themselves to presume, it NEVER will be.
Why do you say this? You don't seem to know what Fellay and Williamson have to say either. You can't find a doctrine to back it up. The reality is exactly what you say it is not. This is just wishful fantasizing on your part.
Bugnini was a Mason, a snake, and a sinner.
Just Bugnini? Could there be more? Who appointed him? And who appointed those like him, Kaspar, Mahoney,Clarke etc. Roncalli was under suspicion for mondernism since the earliest parts of his career. Montini was banished from the Vatican and denied the Cardinals hat because he disobeyed Pius XII's moratorium on communication with the Soviets. Wojtyla was disobedient by allowing devotion to the alleged "Divine Mercy" against the wishes of the Holy See. So, if we're going to talk disobedience,let's see where it is.
What else is new? Christ still protects His Church which is NOT Marcel's schism.
Christ protects his Church WITH LeFebvre. No schism.
You are effectively calling His Holiness a modernist heretic.
If I was, so? When did God suspend Free Will for his Popes? What makes it impossible for Popes to be so steeped in error that they are heretical?
We will leave that aside as being as ridiculous as anything else emanating from the schism.
No. You'll leave it aside because you don't want to go there.
In Catholic culture, UBI PETRUS IBI ECCLESIA now, then and forever!
That's an axiom. Not a doctrine. But I guess if it sounds romantic enough, it must be true. You've been reading too much Envoy or Catholic Answers or watching to much EWTN.
If Catholics need schismatic fallacies, opinions or buttinskis, we will be sure to let the schismatics know.
More likely, if neos need fantasies and catch phrases in order to reconcile the objective contradictions in the governance of the Church, they'll find them. And if they need to calumniate in order to avoid the truth they'll do that too.
Oh, as to my "apparent dislike" of the late archschismatic Lefebvre, I don't dislike him. I despise him and many (not all) who have been gullible enough to chug his laced spiritual kool aid by the gallon.
What Kool Aid? Another invention on your part. You can't provide any facts to support your empty opinion. I can only assume that LeFebvre provided the painful reminder that the "party" of post Vatican II and the cult of personality surrounding our poor pathetic, hapless Pope is reality.
One reason was that I once considered becoming one of his schismatics before coming to my Catholic senses.
Yet you won't demonstrate this "coming to the senses" with anything but an emotional venom. That's not much to say for your Catholic charity of the post conciliar flavor. Would his holiness approve of your disdain? The Patriarch of the West? the Vicar of Christ? The Supreme Pontiff? I've named at least three of his titles, do I get a prize?
I also considered Russian Orthodoxy but they, at least, are honest folk. My tastes are offended to but I grew up and got over it.
Russian Orthodox? Honest folk? Where do you pull this stuff from?
It no more matters whether positions taken by SSPX schismatics and excommunicati violate promises of Christ than it would mater whether Charles Manson does so.
You missed the point. You can't provide a doctrinal issue that the SSPX hold a non-Catholic position. You insist that the SSPX are schismatic and you do this based on the erroneous opinion of the Pope who based it on the erroneous opinion of a mondernist Cardinal. You make up promises of Christ that he never made. That is unCatholic.
What do such questions mean? You cannot violate Christ's promises.
As I stated. You make up new promises that he never made in order to keep your comfort zone secure.
All that is relevant as to Christ's promises is that He made them and He will keep them and that we are to belong to the Church He founded (Rome/Vatican/JP II at the moment) and obey legitimate Church authority such as: The Vicar of Christ on Earth, not some illicitly consecrated but licitly excommunicated rebel schismatic bishops.
Again, you don't want to face reality. I ask what promises he made and you won't even try to cite them. The excommunications are invalid. Objectively. The Pope cannot willy nilly excommunicate someone because they are telling the truth. Christ did not promise impeccability or even moral behavior to his Popes. He did not promise that all the Vicars would do the right thing and he did not demand that we obey orders that objectively adhere to the worst actions of bad Popes which objectively undermine the Church.
Anyone can make a bogus critique. However the Anglicans did not use the unadulterated Roman Missal. They made changes to it to eliminate the sacrificing priesthood.
I'm surprised that you don't think that there is a problem when a rite of Mass is denuded of all elements that Protestants find offensive.
Doctrinally strict Lutheranism is an oxymoron for one thing. Different sects believe different things. But all it takes is for the use of the varied terminology to be given a modernist or protestant sense and it's easy to use. You're bringing more Catholicism to the text of the Novus Ordo than is actually there.
Lutheranism is set out in the Book of Concord as I understand it. The site I link to states: "A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God's Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord."
But all it takes is for the use of the varied terminology to be given a modernist or protestant sense and it's easy to use. You're bringing more Catholicism to the text of the Novus Ordo than is actually there.
From the Novus Ordo Penitential Rite:
And I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
What Lutheran asks the saints to pray for them? The Smalcald Articles state: "The invocation of saints is also one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, and destroys the knowledge of Christ."
From the Novus Ordo Eucharistic Prayers (translated by ICEL):
Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith, especially those for whom we now pray, {names deceased loved ones whom the celebrant or parishioner wishes to offer before God}. May these, and all who sleep in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness, and peace. (Prayer I)Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. (Prayer II)
Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship. (Prayer III)
Remember those who have died in the peace of Christ and all the dead whose faith is known to you alone. (Prayer IV)
What Lutheran prays for the dead? The Defense of the Augsburg Confession says:
But let us return to the case. Since the Mass is not a satisfaction, either for punishment or for guilt, ex opere operato, without faith, it follows that the application on behalf of the dead is useless.
I do. There's no reason, however, to think that that description applies to the Roman Rite.
As an immediate consequence, a member of Opus Dei enjoys the same freedom as any other Catholic to form his own opinions and to act accordingly. Therefore Opus Dei as such neither should nor can express — nor even have — an opinion of its own. If on a given question the Church has defined a doctrine, the members of Opus Dei adhere to it. If on the other hand the official teaching of the Church — the Pope and the bishops — has not said anything on a question, each member of Opus Dei holds and defends the opinion he sees fit, and acts in consequence.
The same thing goes for "all ideologies" or "personal freedom". If you look at the context there, it is always clear that he is speaking of ideologies which are not against the Faith, and freedom which is not against the Faith.
Could you elaborate more on the problem with "sanctifying your work"? I am not sure why there should be a problem with the expression.
Opus Dei welcomes people who are not only not Catholic, but not even Christian. What is the role of non-Catholics/Christians in Opus Dei if they don't even acknowledge the one, True Faith or even God Himself?
Opus Dei only allows non-Catholics to be cooperators, not members. I suppose there is a justification for this practice since it was approved by the Holy See in 1950. I thought about this and concluded that certainly the non-Catholic OD cooperators will be influenced by the Catholicism and good works of the members, and perhaps it will be a beneficial influence in conversion. In no. 51 he writes: "Opus Dei's aim is to help men and women to be good Christians".
As for what you point out, I read about half of Conversations just now (I am not familiar with St. Josemaria's works) and I agree that explicit calls for conversion are missing. I looked at a different book on the escrivaworks.org site, and I found this:
One hears it said that we must be ecumenical. So be it. Nevertheless I fear that behind some self-styled ecumenical activities there is a hidden fraud: for they are activities which do not lead to the love of Christ, to the true vine. For that reason they lack fruit. I ask Our Lord each day to expand my heart, that he may continue to supernaturalize the love he has put in my soul for all men, without distinction of race, nationality, cultural condition or wealth. I sincerely esteem all men, Catholics or not, those who do believe in something and those who do not. I feel sorry for these unbelievers. But Christ founded only one Church: he has only one Spouse.The union of all Christians? Yes. Even more: the union of all those who believe in God. But there exists only one true Church. There is no need to rebuild it out of pieces dispersed throughout the world, and it does not need to go through any sort of purification in order to be finally cleansed. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous, for she is incorruptible and pure. Only one house knows and safeguards the inviolability of only one bridal bed with chaste modesty. She preserves us for God, she destines for the kingdom the children she has begotten. Anyone who separates himself from the Church unites himself with an adulterer; he leaves behind the promises of the Church and he who abandons the Church of Christ will not achieve the rewards of Christ. (In love with the Church, no. 4)
The whole book (from a quick glance) seems to be of a similiar and very traditional tenor (from no. 30-31: "The term democracy is meaningless in the Church ... the truths of the faith are not determined by majority vote"). I just think that it's quite unfair for people to condemn St. Josemaria based on articles they've read in The Remnant or whatever. He is a Saint, after all, and I think that demands a closer look before he's written off as a proponent of "naturalism and indifferentism", as Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, has written.
Not all Lutherans subscribe to everything in the Book of Concord for one thing.
For another, if you've ever read the book of Concord like I have, you notice that it is a filthy and illogical piece of junk.
There is no requirement for it to make sense. Therefore it's easy pickings for modernism.
You ask what Lutheran prays for the dead?
From the Missouri Synod website:
Prayers for the dead can be traced back to early Christian times (Apostolic* Constitutions, VIII, 41–42; Cyril* of Jerusalem, Catechesis XXIII, Mystagogica V, 9–10; Tertullian,* De corona militis, 3, and De oratione, 29). Augustine held that prayers for the dead could help only those who had led pious lives (De verbis apostoli, sermo CLXXII XXXII, 2). Prayers for the dead were assoc. with the celebration of the Lord's Supper (Apostolic Constitutions, VI, 30). RC doctrine “regarding prayers for the dead is bound up inseparably with the doctrine of purgatory and the more general doctrine of the communion of saints” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 ed., p. 653; cf. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session XXV, “Decree Concerning Purgatory”). The RC locus classicus is 2 Mac 12:40–45 (cf. 1 Co 15:29).
Luther's position is best summarized: “Nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us concerning the dead. Therefore all this may be safely omitted, even if it were no error and idolatry” (SA-II II 12). HE INCLINES TO A CAUTIOUS TOLERATION OF THE PRACTICE, POINTS OUT THAT WE HAVE NO COMMAND TO PRAY FOR THE DEAD, INASMUCH AS THOSE WHO ARE IN HEAVEN DO NOT NEED PRAYERS, AND THOSE WHO ARE IN HELL CANNOT BE HELPED THEREBY, AND SUGGESTS THAT CHRISTIANS MAKE THEIR PRAYERS CONDITIONAL (WA 10-III, 194–195, 409 to 410; 11, 130; 12, 596; 26, 508; 44, 203). The Ap states: “We know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit” (XXIV, 94). Luther and the confessions vigorously oppose purgatory and attempts to gain forgiveness of sins for the dead, esp. through such works as masses and almsgiving (see Opus operatum). M. Chemnitz* regarded ancient prayers for the dead as exhortations and consolations for the living (Examen Concilii Tridentini, III, Locus III: De purgatorio, Section II, vii, 12). Most Luth. theologians regarded prayers for the dead as useless or unpermitted; others emphasized the mystical union of believers and regarded prayers for the dead (though not for their salvation) PERMISSIBLE.
In the early ch., feasts of apostles and evangelists were soon celebrated, esp. those of Peter and Paul, though those of John and James were also favorites. Later, martyrs and all other saints were commemorated November 1 (All Saints' Day) and the departed in purgatory November 2 (All Souls' Day; November 3, if November 2 fell on Sunday). In the E Orthodox Ch., this festival is observed the Saturday before Pent. or the last Sunday of the ch. yr. In the Moravian Ch., Easter morning is dedicated to the memory of those who died during the yr. In the Ev. Ch. of Prussia, the last Sunday of the ch. yr. was set aside for commemorating the dead, and this day or December 31 has been adopted by many Luths. See also Church Year, 14, 17. Dead, Prayers for; Totenfest.
And regarding Mary's invocation:
The Book* of Concord refers to Mary as “blessed” (AC III 1), “pure, holy, and ever-virgin” (SA-I 4), who “is most worthy of the most ample honors” (Ap XXI 27) and “is rightly called and truly is the mother of God” (FC Ep VIII 12). “GRANTED THAT BLESSED MARY PRAYS FOR THE CHURCH” (AP XXI 27), yet “Scripture does not teach the invocation of saints” (AC XXI 2). See also Mariolatry; Theotokos.
Interesting. I didn't know that. But not it states: "not for their salvation" - the quotes from EP II and EP III clearly pray for their salvation. "bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence" and "Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship".
The Book* of Concord refers to Mary as “blessed” (AC III 1), “pure, holy, and ever-virgin” (SA-I 4), who “is most worthy of the most ample honors” (Ap XXI 27) and “is rightly called and truly is the mother of God” (FC Ep VIII 12). “GRANTED THAT BLESSED MARY PRAYS FOR THE CHURCH” (AP XXI 27), yet “Scripture does not teach the invocation of saints” (AC XXI 2). See also Mariolatry; Theotokos.
Right. Lutheranism permits the honor to the Saints, but denies the validity of prayer to them.
Simple: they can use EPI then and just invoke what we call a prayer as a commemoration. In fact none of the prayers are explicitly, intrinsically incapable of being read in a Protestant sense. They are all praises to God for those he's counted among his elect.
Max Thurian in 1969 after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo stated, ""It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics."
I have another quote from Max Thurian where he says that the NOM is incompatible with Protestantism.
"Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer. That proposition was rejected, because the commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond to the actual common faith of Protestants... the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine presupposed Transubstantiation." (Max Thurian, quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.)
But even if they were, don't you find the utter inconsistency of 'reformists' fascinating? The Vatican bends over so far to encourage the Greek to unify Christendom, as if The Church alone were not one - which is one of the principal marks, after all, of the true Church; that it is, indeed, one. It even abuses the anaphoras in its Pauline rite, as was one of the principal complaints of the Critical Study. It goes so far to encourage people to think that JP II no longer even recognizes the brave eastern Catholic for what they are because the schismatic Greek have expressed offense that orthodox rites might be placed in the service of the papacy. But when it comes to Lefebvre, suddenly the outreach to schismatics ceases, suddenly the ecumenism stops, suddenly the kind words to 'separated brethren' are replaced with derision, mockery and contempt. And yet these 'reformists' live this lie, this contradiction, this having two contrary approaches and ideas in their heads, simultaneously, year after year . . after year after year.
Who was Adoreman as head of Ignatius Press, and considered a liberal in that company. But apparently he ran afoul of his own, and was deposed. Again, I assume he remains Adoreman and jealously defends 'reform'. But perhaps, in part, he's had second thoughts since all this was done to him. I don't know.
something on Adoremus using the language of the Romans
As was mentioned by Latin Mass, I believe it was, the Adoremans once considered a 'new order' of their own; their own 'reform' rite. They objected to 'new order' for its lack of reverence, as was von Hildebrand's complaint, and that of others. But their own seemed even worse. I don't know what became of that. Ultimately, as I wrote, they sought a sort of middle ground, only to be consumed by the power of the ring, if you recall Tolkien (or even just saw the movies).
a sort of proto-Marcel
Ironic that at the same time as 'reformists' in the institutional church wish to canonize Martin Luther, you would slander the name of Marcel Lefebvre by comparing him with Martin Luther. You don't do yourself proud by that, just in my opinion. In fact, if you have a complaint with Lefebvre, shouldn't you specifically stick to that complaint, and specifically what it is you think he did or did not do? There is no honest comparison with Martin Luther.
At least religiously, Catholics are, by nature, conservatives
If that were so, and you defend 'reform', then how do you explain the polls showing 'reform' Catholics tend to split alongside non-Catholics on key social and moral issues? However, traditionalist Catholics do not, and stand faithfully by Catholic dogmas and the Creeds. There certainly is a split. But you're suggesting the wrong side is splitting one way, not the other.
The dark lord presided defiantly at Econe not in Rome.
The Sauron of Tolkien's mythology is clearly the devil, Satan, corrupting evil. His knights are fallen angels of higher degree than his demon orcs. His realm is that of dessication and fire, toxic fumes and darkness, fire and brimstone. His power is showy and dramatic. His minions are cruel and cowardly. But as that metaphor for corrupting evil, again Our Lord Himself gave us that test for helping to know which one robed in white was Christ, and which was anti-Christ. By their fruits you shall know them. The institutional church lays in ruins about the feet of the 'reformer' Pope. But Catholics will travel miles, back and forth, to Mass. They traveled once to the cliffs in Ireland, under external English persecution. Perhaps they do again, today, under persecution of their own putatively Catholic bishops, as Ireland languishes in the Faith (and talk to even any 'reform' priest from Ireland what grief the Irish will give a priest nowadays when he visits the nation that once had a Catholic soul).
In fact, the Holy See treats the SSPX very well, and Cardinal Hoyos has made it clear that they are welcome to rejoin the Church at any time, without giving up their particular theological opinions on the Liturgy or losing their independency (indeed they have been offered a universal jurisdiction directly under the Pope). It is the SSPX who stay outside, since they fear subjection to the Pope would result in their destruction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.