Replies

The so-called Tridentine Mass, for example, is really the Mass handed down from Apostolic times.

No its not. The Tridentine, or the early forms of it, was a combination of two Rites that came, supposedly from near Apostolic times. You cannot find a written record of anything closely resembling the Tridentine before the fifth century.

This is at the heart of the clash with modernists who believe the Catholic Faith began with Vatican II.

No it isn’t. This is a clash between people who believe, as did Pope Pius in Mediator Dei, that the current Pope controls the liturgy, and those who believe they are free to stick with the liturgy of a past Pope, despite disobeying the present one.

not to mention numerous statements and documents contradicting centuries of Catholic teaching.

Really? Please demonstrate this.

But it is exceedingly doubtful that Archbishop Lefebvre was anything less than a saintly man who placed the Faith before even his obedience to the Pope. Canon Law explicitly provides that no penalty accrues if one disobeys the pope out of a state of necessity. Not only this, but even if such a state did not in fact actually exist, no penalty accrues if an individual in good conscience simply believes a state of necessity existed. No one can doubt that the Archbishop believed the Church was indeed in crisis and that a state of necessity existed. Nor can anyone who is honest fault him for believing this.

Completely fantasy. The Pope wrote Canon law, he decides what is or is not a state of necessity.

Canon law depends from his authority, not from Lefebvre’s state of mind. Canon law cannot reverse what the Pope does, that would be an absurdity. And the Pope declared it a schism, and declared Lefebvre excommunicated. If you think you can judge the Pope’s decision, you are a heretic.

patent +AMDG

Well put...in case you were wondering, I agree with you completely. Popes have full authority over matters of discipline. Meat on Fridays, days of observance of Holy Days, priestly celibacy, all of these are matters of discipline. All can be changed by the Pope.

Liturgy is a discipline. However, it is also the primary vehicle of catechesis for the vast majority of Catholics.

The changes in liturgy, being changes in Church discipline, rightfully fall under the authority of a Pope. No previous Pope may bind subsequent Popes on matters of Church discipline, despite protest to the contrary by schismatics.

On the other hand, however, since disciplinary changes are indeed matters of prudential judgement, not matters of faith and morals per se, these prudential decisions are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Any mass a Pope brings forward, if proper matter and form exist, will be guaranteed to be a True Eucharist.

But the form of the liturgy itself may not fully catechize the faithful on the reality of that Real Presence as well as the rest of the faith.

So it is not being infaithful to question the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of catechesis in a new liturgy.

However, no one may question its validity or licitness or the authority of the Pope to change matters of discipline.

The blurring of lines occurs when people question the right of laity to examine not the licitness not the validity nor the authority but the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of a new liturgy in catechizing.

So if one is faithful as above yet questions only the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of a new liturgy in catechizing one is in no way being an extreme trad or integrist or schismatic or heretic.

If however, one denies the liturgy's validity or licitness or the authority of the Pope to change matters of discipline one is indeed in error.

Steve Hand purposely blurs this essential distinction, and brands the former as belonging in the same group as the latter.

You are wrong about the Tridentine Mass. All ancient rites in the West differed in merely minor ways from one another. Prayers like the Kyrie were recited in the catacombs. All Trent did was codify one version and impose unity.

As for what the fight is about, you incorrectly state the problem. The problem is with people like you who think the Pope can do anything he pleases and those like me who know he can't. How do I know? Because Vatican I set limits on him. He cannot oppose tradition--he must protect it and pass it on unchanged. He is the guardian of our heritage. Thomas Aquinas made it clear that even if a pope gave the command, if it would harm the Church we would be obliged to disobey. St. Robert Bellarmine made the same point. Both are doctors of the Church. Your notion of what the Pope can and cannot do is incorract. It is papolatry--pope worship. It is blind obedience-- something no one on earth should expect.

You call me a heretic, but these days the heretics are made cardinals and the real schismatics--Protestants, Orthodox--are in great favor. It is people like you who support the new religion that has been invented. But it is not Catholicism. It has the buildings and uses some of the same words, but they mean different things and it is not the ancient Faith. Look in any church--where is the tabernacle? It is no longer central. No one genuflects--because the belief in His presence is not there. There is a table but no altar. The priest presides, but he no longer offers sacrifice.