Posted on 02/04/2005 10:15:40 PM PST by narses
"You sir, just made a heretical statement."
Heresy involves a denial of some revealed dogma of faith. The Novus Ordo is hardly a truth revealed by Heaven; it is a Mass concocted by humanists, designed by their own admission to appeal to Protestants. As such it is a danger to the faith, suppressing uniquely Catholic dogmatic truths such as propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation, in flagrant violation of the Council of Trent. There is very little proof that it is efficacious. To the contrary, it is actually blasphemous and has already destroyed the faith of millions around the globe.
Notice I did not say it was invalid--which is the usual claim supporters of the new Mass make against its opponents. I said it was a danger to the faith, and as such it is an abomination, and, because it offends against Heaven itself, a blasphemy. I stand by that foursquarely--as does the SSPX, by the way--and as did Archbishop Lefebvre who saw full well what it was concocted to do--help usher-in a new religion.
And while I'm at it, allow me to make a further point regarding papal authority which you evoke ad nauseam, as if it were the raison d'etre for the Church's very existence. It is this: papal authority is not for its own sake. Peter was not given the keys of the Kingdom so that people might render homage to himself. He was given the keys to the treasury of faith--as a king might give his steward the keys to his storehouse. The steward is a servant, not a king. His job is to protect the treasury in his Master's absence.
The power of the papacy, therefore, is for the protection of the faith alone. That is its primary purpose. No matter how celebrated any pope may be, no matter how beloved by millions, if the faith has not been protected under his watch, if he has given scandal by policies which undermine the faith, if he has failed to initiate necessary reforms to shore-up vital dogmas of faith, if he has elevated and rewarded men of little faith, then he has misused his authority and is a failure as a pope.
You said that it was ridiculous to state the new sacraments were efficacious for grace.
I have heard and read the standard SSPX literature line so many times, I think I'll play the record (because traddies don't like "new" things like CDs or DVDs, so I'll be ecumenical and play the record over and over and over again.
Once more, if you believe the new sacraments are not efficacious for grace, then you deny the indefectibility of the Church, and therefore, have uttered heresy.
You go ahead and change the wording around again any way you want, but to state that a liturgy approved by the Church is an abomination or sacrilegious is heresy. Pure and simple. GB has proved that over and over and over and over again.
If not for the graces and offerings many of us have made at our Novus Ordo liturgies at daily Mass and on Sundays, we would not even have the opportunity for the Mass of All Ages.
You are out of line. And just because you have the SSPX propaganda down to a "T," does not mean you are not uttering heresy.
It is heretical to state that grace does not exist outside the visible confines of the Church. It is certainly heretical to say it does not exist in the approved sacraments of the Church.
Thank you for aiding me in my suffering again on this Friday after Ash Wednesday during Lent.
Your problem is you can't reason logically. When I say it is the Archbishop's decision that counts, not the Pope's, I mean that it is what he thought about the state of necessity that counted, according to canon law, and not what the Pope thought. That is an absolutely factual statement. The canon concerns what was in the subject's mind when he violated a precept or command by a superior. It doesn't matter what the superior thinks, it only matters what was in the subject's mind at the time. This is completely reasonable because it would be impossible for any superior, including the Pope, to know what was in the heart and mind of his subordinate. We're talking about a latae sententiae situation, remember, not some papal investigation conducted by some official tribunal.
This would be the case for any act that is not inherently evil. An inherently evil action is prohibited under every circumstance. But disobeying a pope is not inherently evil. It is a well-established Catholic doctrine that some papal commands should be resisted if they would do harm to souls or injure the Church in some way. Therefore what is essential is what is intended by the subject vis a vis the superior's command. He alone holds the key to the truth of his own motives--not the superior whose command was violated. And just as it is permitted to disobey a law to save somebody's life--to break and enter a private home, for instance, if it is on fire and somebody were trapped inside--so it would be permitted to disobey a papal command in order to save souls or to protect the Church from harm which would result from obeying such a command.
The "I'm a traditionalist who spends my time taking after traditionalists" tap dance doesn't bear itself out. Get another schtick.
You are the only self-proclaimed expert on Catholicism around here.
Why don't you tell us one more time about your master's thesis.
Yawwwn
1. Nonsense. If what you say is true, then the Pope would certainly have charged Archbishop Lefebvre with heresy. The Archbishop has said over and over what I am saying--and some SSPX have called the New Mass inherently evil. Yet Rome opened negotiations with the SSPX without even a whisper of any charge of heresy--schism was bad enough--and the Vatican is huffing and puffing mightily as it is to try to make the latter charge stick. You are way out of your depth on this therefore. It is not heretical to speak the truth. The truth is that the Mass is a violation of Trent, is undisguisedly blasphemous and destroys the faith of Catholics.
2. You say the Novus Ordo has been "approved" by the Church. Interesting. When, pray tell, was the Novus Ordo ever officially approved by the Church? Show me a signed decree. There WAS a decree promulgated in 1969--but it was never signed by Paul VI--an interesting oversight, don't you think? A later Apostolic Constitution WAS signed--but it only decreed changes in the Eucharistic Prayer. It did not make the New Mass obligatory in any way, nor did it officially abrogate the Old. An explanation to this Constitution followed still later--but it, too, was unsigned by the Pope.
3. I said the New Mass was blasphemous GENERALLY SPEAKING, and consequently destructive to the faith. I will concede here and there a pious priest will say it in Latin and do all he can to mitigate its Protestant nature. In the distant past I myself had attended such Masses. But for the most part the new Liturgy has not been efficacious in any way. Not only have scandals abounded within the Church since its imposition, but it has been the direct cause of a decline in eucharistic faith as well as a disastrous drop-off in Mass attendance around the globe.
"Thank you for aiding me in my suffering again on this Friday after Ash Wednesday during Lent."
Come again? You call me a heretic over and over--and you're somehow the victim?
"But for the most part the new Liturgy has not been efficacious in any way.'
Skipping around and changing your wording from post to post and then calling me uneducated and out of my league.
The simple truth is that Archbishop Lefebvre may have said many things (including signing his name to an agreement with the Vatican, then reneging a day later), but he never said the Novus Ordo, said according the rubrics, was unable to effect grace.
This is what you claimed earlier, now you backpeddle, slightly, and then speak in "general" terms.
As my teenagers say, "Whatever..."
Nope--I never backpedaled. I spoke of the New Mass in general terms as inefficacious. I'm aware grace will flow where it will. But generally speaking, the Mass has been a disaster.
You just can't seem to cease your attacks on the man you wish to see canonized, can you?
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in 1980, "To the authorities in Rome we have always stated that we considered the Novus Ordo Missae to be dangerous for the faith of priests and people, and so it would be unthinkable for us to gather seminarians together and form them around the altar of this New Mass. Experience is proving us right."
Bishop Fellay stated the following in November, 2004: "Rome is saying to us, 'Listen, the Council and the New Mass are a soup. You say it is a bad soup, but it is a soup! Just say it is a soup and all will be fine.' And I say, 'Well, we know that it is a soup, but it is a poisonous soup, so we don’t care about the soup. What we care about is the poison. And because of the poison, we are not going to drink it."
Very interesting view of reality you have. Archbishop Lefebvre DID sign his name to an agreement with the Vatican, and then renege on it a day later, did he not.
Did he not sign his name to a piece of paper that the Vatican offered him to sign. And regardless of whether it was an actual "agreement" or something Ratzinger was going to present to the Pope for consideration, did he not do that?
This is an "attack." After all the diatribes and presumption you have posted regarding the motivations of the current pope, despite his numerous writings verifying his orthodoxy, you call stating the plain facts "attacking" the Archbishop?
Just because I believe Mother Teresa should be canonized does not mean I think she was right to say (if she is quoted correctly), "We want to help a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Hindu become a better Hindu..."
Is that an attack. And ipso facto, just because it is, does that mean I don't want to see her canonized?
You are a real piece of work. Jockeying in and out and dodging and moving back and forth.
Here. Let me say it again. I hope that one day, the SSPX reconciles with the Church, (although I am certain most of its adherents would say "the Church reconciled with Catholicism")and Archbishop Lefebvre is canonized.
I certainly do. Does that mean I agree with every writing attributed to him? Of course not.
But apparently, you and UR believe his every utterance is infallibly God's Divine Word. You treat it as such...
"I'm aware grace will flow where it will."
So the Novus Ordo sacraments can and do (even if in limited amounts with limited conditions according to you) emit grace.
OK. We agree. Have a great Lent. See you in 6 weeks, as you said three days ago.
"You call me a heretic over and over"
Nope. I said if you believe the Novus Ordo sacraments emit or effect no grace, then you are uttering heresy or a heretical statement.
I never said you were an obstinate heretic. Distinctions. Distinctions. How ultimately rational.
Have a good Lent.
I believe no such think, but that's never stopped you in your slander against lay Catholics, whom you have never met, who attend SSPX Masses.
By the way I have just snail-mailed 10 selected posts of yours, complete and unabridged, to Frs. Kenneth Novak, Christopher Danel and Gary Dilley.
think=thing
"your slander against lay Catholics, whom you have never met, who attend SSPX Masses."
Congratulations! And glad to see you are doing everything you can to heal the wounds in the body of Christ. What a unifier!!!
Just so you know, I have snail mailed 10 select quotes from your writings to your mother so she can see how badly you behave and mistreat people.
Wowee! A tattle-tale. That is so cute...
You are always spouting off about "charity", yet you never practice it yourself.
That was real funny.
My mother died six months ago.
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.