Author Topic: Father Hesse on the Mass. (Read 2299 times)

LordPhan · « **on:** December 02, 2011, 11:09:51 AM »

Sacred Mass according to Church Law, by Father Hesse Doctor of Thomistic Theology and Doctor of Canon Law.

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** December 02, 2011, 11:23:12 AM »

Nice! Thanks LP!

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2011, 11:29:09 AM »

I needed to play with the equalizer, but its good so far :)

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2011, 11:32:01 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Doctor of Thomistic Theology and Doctor of Canon Law.

...by grace of the Conciliar Church.

Again, for some reason Fr.(?) Hesse doubts whether a real Pope can make changes in Mass and ceremonies at all.

I completely fail to understand how he can maintain this position, even from a historical standpoint...(but like I said before, he also says that Urban´ VI. changes were illegal, too, so...)

LordPhan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2011, 11:39:00 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: LordPhan
Doctor of Thomistic Theology and Doctor of Canon Law.

...by grace of the Conciliar Church.

Again, for some reason Fr.(?) Hesse doubts whether a real Pope can make changes in Mass and ceremonies at all.

I completely fail to understand how he can maintain this position, even from a historical standpoint...(but like I said before, he also says that Urban´ VI. changes were illegal, too, so...)

Bishop's Tissier De Mallerais, Williamson, De Gallerata, and Fellay, have all stated his ordination was Valid. Who are you to say otherwise? He asked them if it was valid and they stated it was, it was stated in Latin as per the proper rubrics. If it had been in the vulgar with all the messed up translations and improper rubrics that they make up then I would agree with you that it would be doubtful.

You don't understand theology and yet you comment as if you a layman are an authority? Why because a non-trained Sede Priest or Layman told you so?

His Theology is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, he was mentored by Bishops who were still loyal to Tradition at the time he was being taught and he rejected everything of the 'new theology' of Vatican 2. What he says about Theology is correct, if you disagree then you should seriously consider whether your position is correct.

That is all I have to say on the matter.

LordPhan · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2011, 11:40:34 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Nice! Thanks LP!

You are most welcome Friend.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2011, 12:15:46 PM »

Well, if Fr. Hesse is right, then the rest of the SSPX is wrong, too, in their acceptance of the 1955/1962 rubrics as well as stating that the NO is valid (which, according to Hesse, is very doubtful).

In any case, Hesse studied at the Angelicuм in the late 70s, a place inhabited by the very essence of modernism.

In saying that a ecclesiastical law is superior to the supreme lawgiver of the Catholic Church, the Supreme Pontiff, he violates the principles of sound theology as well as logic.

In earlier years I was very impressed with Fr. Hesse, too, but with a little knowledge of Catholic theology, this was gone very fast. Unfortunately, titles and honors have no value in these days...

PS: I don´t care what uneducated priests or laypeople tell me. I simply consult the approved manuals.

LordPhan · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2011, 12:29:16 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Well, if Fr. Hesse is right, then the rest of the SSPX is wrong, too, in their acceptance of the 1955/1962 rubrics as well as stating that the NO is valid (which, according to Hesse, is very doubtful).

In any case, Hesse studied at the Angelicuм in the late 70s, a place inhabited by the very essence of modernism.

In saying that a ecclesiastical law is superior to the supreme lawgiver of the Catholic Church, the Supreme Pontiff, he violates the principles of sound theology as well as logic.

In earlier years I was very impressed with Fr. Hesse, too, but with a little knowledge of Catholic theology, this was gone very fast. Unfortunately, titles and honors have no value in these days...

PS: I don´t care what uneducated priests or laypeople tell me. I simply consult the approved manuals.

The Pope is not the Supreme Lawgiver, God is, The Pope is Supreme in matters of Dicipline unless he contradicts God. An Infallible Law cannot be abbrogated, Laws on Faith or Morals spoken Ex Cathedra cannot be changed by a future Pope. Laws on Dicipline can be changed because a Pope cannot bind his successors on matters of Dicipline.

A Pope may also not create anything new on matters of Faith or Morals, he simply defines what has always been believed in a more clear manner.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2011, 12:45:13 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

The Pope is not the Supreme Lawgiver, God is, The Pope is Supreme in matters of Dicipline unless he contradicts God. An Infallible Law cannot be abbrogated, Laws on Faith or Morals spoken Ex Cathedra cannot be changed by a future Pope. Laws on Dicipline can be changed because a Pope cannot bind his successors on matters of Dicipline.

A Pope may also not create anything new on matters of Faith or Morals, he simply defines what has always been believed in a more clear manner.

Completely right. But Father Hesse obviously rejects that a Pope can change disciplinary laws, giving the examples of how Urban VI and Pius XII made illegal changes to the liturgy. Strangely, he leaves out St. Pius X., who made equally great changes, especially in the Roman Breviary.

LordPhan · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2011, 12:54:32 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: LordPhan
The Pope is not the Supreme Lawgiver, God is, The Pope is Supreme in matters of Dicipline unless he contradicts God. An Infallible Law cannot be abbrogated, Laws on Faith or Morals spoken Ex Cathedra cannot be changed by a future Pope. Laws on Dicipline can be changed because a Pope cannot bind his successors on matters of Dicipline.

A Pope may also not create anything new on matters of Faith or Morals, he simply defines what has always been believed in a more clear manner.

Completely right. But Father Hesse obviously rejects that a Pope can change disciplinary laws, giving the examples of how Urban VI and Pius XII made illegal changes to the liturgy. Strangely, he leaves out St. Pius X., who made equally great changes, especially in the Roman Breviary.

You have obviously not listened to it, and the Mass is not Diciplinary, it is a matter of Faith. Actually take the time to listen to it. There are changes that can be made and changes that cannot be made. He explains the changes St. Pius X made and why they were not really changes to begin with, they were a restoration of the way it was before Leo XIII filled up the calendar with feast days. He changed the rank of Sunday so it takes precedence over most days otherwise you would never have a Sunday.

Take the time to listen to it.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #10 on:** December 03, 2011, 03:23:03 AM »

I listened to many of Mons. Hesse´s speeches and it is always the same story.

He makes the claim that some major parts of the Mass belong to the depositum fidei , but where does he get that from? As all the Sacraments were instituted by Our Lord, the liturgies are in substance of divine origin and cannot be changed by the Supreme Pontiff in this regard ("...nullam habet potestatem mutandi"). But the biggest part of the ceremonies surrounding the Holy Sacrifice itself are of ecclesiastical origin and are therefore subject to the ecclesiastical lawgiver, as one can easily read in any book of Canon Law.
Anywhere I read, the liturgical laws are named in one sentence with disciplinary laws, which are infallible (theologically certain, the manuals tell us). On the other side, I cannot find any trace of Mons. Hesse´s claims.

I copied some relevant pages from Wernz-Vidal "Ius Canonicuм", Tom. IVa "De Rebus", tit. IX., "De Legislatoribus et Liblis Liturgicis", pag. 410-418):

http://imageshack.us/g/845/42978524.jpg/

St. Pius X. changes were the most extreme changes to the liturgy since St. Pius V. He completely changed the Psalter which was in use since the times of the Desert Fathers. This was a complete innovation and novelty.
(Of course, there is at least one sede priest who rejects Pius X. for precisely this reason...)

PS: I don´t know why I said Urban VI., of course I meant Urban VIII. who, sadly so, changed the beautiful hymns of the Roman Breviary. Luckily, they are still to be found in the Monastic ones.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2011, 06:57:30 AM »

I think, Canon Law supports this:

Quote

Can 2. Codex, plerumque, nihil decernit de ritibus et caeremoniis quas liturgici libri, ab Ecclesia Latina probati, servandas praecipiunt in celebratione sacrosancti Missae sacrificii, in administratione Sacramentorum et Sacramentalium aliisque sacris peragendis. Quare omnes liturgicae leges vim suam retinent nisi earum aliqua in Codice expresse corrigatur.

I got there through Fr. Rado OSB, "Enchiridion Liturgicuм" Vol. I, Rome 1961, "De iure ordinante cultum publicuм", p. 26

it is also interesting to see that St. Pius X. decrees his liturgical changes in the breviary in saying that it is the will of the Supreme Pontiff. (op. cit. p. 22)

I also consulted Fr. Oppenheim OSB, "Principia Theologiae Liturgicae", Turin 1947 and studied Fr. Jungmann´s celebrated "Missarum Sollemnia", but I don´t have it in my own library. Every author starts with explaining the Liturgical Laws with decrees Mons. Hesse calls "illegal", "illegitimate" or "ceasaro-papist". I have nowhere found proof for the opposite, even though I am (as a big fan of the old Holy Week) very interested.

So, do you agree with Hesse´s position, that the Novus Ordo is most likely in itself invalid and that the rubrics of St. Pius X. are the last legitimate rubrics for Holy Mass and the Divine Office?

Edit: Proofs for the plain Papal supremacy in liturgical laws can be found from the very beginnings from Christianity. Maybe the latest are of special interest, some here: http://imageshack.us/g/834/66847508.jpg/