Quote from: Centroamerica

To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides  against those who side with the old theologians.  When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.

I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk.  It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.  

If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing.  His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Fr. Gregory Hesse, a Canon Lawyer and Doctor of Thomistic Theology agrees with me. Best to listen to all of it but from minute 15:00-25:00 he is clear on it. The "validity of consecration" of the bakery/wine cellar is nonsense. I rest my case.

Spot on. It is refreshing to hear a priest who actually understands the Church's law and theology and can apply right reason and logic to them.

It becomes clearer to me what Father Wathen meant when he said years ago that the SSPX suffered from soft theology in certain areas.

The question about Bishop Fellay and his 'bakery/wine cellar consecration' is not just a simple matter of a legitimate difference of theological opinion.  The theology of Bishop Fellay is what makes everything in the Novus Ordo possible.  It presupposes a conception of the sacraments, the priesthood and the holy liturgy that is antithetical to Catholic tradition and dogmatic truth.  It makes any defense of Catholic faith impossible.


His theology takes the priest from a participant in the priesthood of Jesus Christ to the level of a pagan wizard, a magical sorcerer.  It reduces the sacraments from divinely instituted mysteries and formal objects of faith to credulous superstitions.  Divine worship becomes secondary and entirely accidental to the True Presence.  The sacrificial character of the Mass is as well.  And the necessary completion of the sacrifice by the communion of the priest is likewise a simple accident.  It separates the institution of the Blessed Sacrament from the institution of the priesthood which Jesus Christ joined together.  It ignores or treats as purely accidental the symbolic separation of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ.  And by excluding the Mass ignores or treats as accidental the symbolic joining of the Body and the Blood in His resurrection.  The dogmas regarding the form and matter of the sacrament are treated as simple legal prescriptions that may be dismissed.  If a priest can forget the bread or wine, why cannot he forget both and consecrate juice and cookies?  If the matter is non-essential and open to human manipulation, why does the form of the sacrament have to be respected?  And that is exactly what the Novus Ordo did.  In fine, his theology makes the Mass itself a simple accident, and necessarily a matter of pure discipline open to the free and independent will of any self-styled liturgical expert to do anything with it.  And there has been nothing but liturgical instability since.  Even now Bishop Fellay is talking about the reform of the reform.  How mindless can he be?

One of the great advances in liturgical understanding over the last twenty-five years is that the Liturgy is not and has never been a matter of pure discipline, but is and always has been a necessary attribute of the faith.  It is not and never has been the object of the free and independent will of any legislator.  Bishop Fellay knows nothing of this truth.  I am sickened to think that he has represented all traditional Catholics in doctrinal discussion with Modernist Rome.  I do not doubt that the Romans sized him up well.  They never would have entered into a legitimate exchange with a traditional Catholic who would ask serious questions and demand serious definitive answers grounded in the Church's attribute of infallibility.  

We are now picking  up the ruins of traditional Catholicism that has been fragmented by incompetency in our leadership.  The situation is so much worse than the late 1960s and early 70s when there were only a few scattered Catholics trying to understand what was happening.  I know that our duty is to fight and that is what we must do.  The outcome of this battle is a matter of God's merciful Providence.  But, I now pray like Samson, that even if it brings about my own ruin, that this diabolical edifice will soon be brought crumbling down.

 

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Centroamerica

To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides  against those who side with the old theologians.  When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.

I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk.  It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.  

If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing.  His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.

Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.

Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Centroamerica

To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides  against those who side with the old theologians.  When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.

I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk.  It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.  

If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing.  His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.

Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.

Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.

In the specific link provided by myself to Fr. Hesse’s talk he does not say that “Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.”  If you are making this claim from some other source please provide a specific reference that can be examined in context.

I had the opportunity to see Fr. Hesse in person several times and have found him to be a most competent theologian defending Catholic tradition.  He was, but not for the reasons you claim, an “original theologian” in that he was able to examine new problems from new perspectives.  

There are two general categories of theologians with respect to truth: the more common and popular place themselves above dogma and believe that infallibility rests in their interpretation rather than in the dogma itself. They implicitly claim to be the masters of truth.  The other category holds dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, the unmistakable ground of divine revelation that ends all theological speculation on the subject and from which alone certain conclusions can be deduced. The former believes that dogma is a diving board for theoretical speculations and the latter holds that dogma constitutes a boundary, a limit beyond which speculation is constrained.

Fr. Hesse belonged to the latter and it is true but most unfortunate that anyone who regards dogma as divine revelation that stands on its own feet is now characterized as an “original theologian.”  But, we have fallen upon hard times.  
   

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Quote from: Centroamerica

To be fair, Fr. Hesse says that he sides  against those who side with the old theologians.  When he says this he seems to indicate that he could be wrong and that the matter is not decided. He makes clear arguments for why he took that position and also says that the purpose of the law book is not to declare if it is possible but only to speak about the evil or illicitness of the act.

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the approved theologians of the Church, especially today when the Faith and Holy Tradition are attacked on all fronts.

I don't think that this would apply to this particular case because no article of the Faith is at risk.  It seems that one can have one opinion or the other, just as is the case with the belief in the Mediatrix of All Grace.  

If we take what you have stated here as a reason, it would seem to be best to take the most precautious route, which is what Fr. Hesse asserts that he is doing.  His point for discussing the matter deals with the New Mass, and it is his opinion that leads him to the very safe conclusion, SAFEST, that the New Mass in the vernacular is probably invalid (for all, etc.).

It is never safe to go against the consensus of the theologians, whether the route taken seems to us more safe or less than the teaching they explain.

Actually, the safest conclusion regarding the NO in the vernacular is that it is doubtful, not that it is invalid, because doubt can be established by the significant change in the words, but invalidity has to be certainly proven by proving that the words "for all" absolutely and in every circuмstance substantially change the meaning of the form, which has not yet been done, as far as I know.

Fr. Hesse was an "original" theologian, which is to say that he made up his own novel theories, e.g. that VII was not an ecuмenical council because it did not infallibly define or condemn anything, and he gave a very original explanation why, which you can listen to online.
However, he can find no support for his definition of an ecuмenical council, and his theory is actually refuted by the fact that there was an ecuмenical council (and recognized as such by the Church) which was merely disciplinary and which did not define any dogma nor condemn any heresy - the First Lateran Council.

In the specific link provided by myself to Fr. Hesse’s talk he does not say that “Vatican II was not an ecuмenical council.”  If you are making this claim from some other source please provide a specific reference that can be examined in context.
   

"Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church"

Thank you.



Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.

I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Thank you.



Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.

I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.

Wherever you studied in the seminary or offer Masses, if it is an English speaking country, I wouldn't suggest making those same comments about Fr. Hesse.  I don't know of many who will take you seriously considering the subject.  

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Thank you.



Now everyone can learn from him. Fr. Gruner and J.V. sponsored at least some of his conferences. CFN still sells his CD's I believe.

I would not recommend anyone learning from that video because it is founded on the novelty I mentioned earlier and contains some other errors, e.g. he says that ecuмenical councils are like sacramentals or higher and says they are liturgical acts, he says that no pope can change Quo Primum, and maybe other things I haven't noticed.

And in his considered observations he is exhibiting an ability to use his extensive training and powers of reason to actually make sense of and detect, the conciliar revolutionaries misuse of the Church's structures to deceive and subvert its function and mission.
His explanations of the sacramental and liturgical dimensions of a true council of the Church are not novelty, they are in fact, a reality.

And the idea that Quo Primum is revisable, revocable, only disciplinary, and not binding is the error and novelty of the conciliar church and its modernist theologians.