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.

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.  
   

http://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (Born in the 17th
century, in Germany)

46.3 "During this period the Wisdom of God guides the
Church in several ways: 1) by chastising the Church so that
riches may not corrupt her completely; 2) by interposing the
Council of Trent like a light in the darkness, so that the Chris-
tians who see the light may know what to believe...

46.7 "They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call
it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard
for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the
axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons
and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and
elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however
holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain
free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification,
and delimitation by man.

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.

"The Code of Canon Law defines schismatics as the faithful who have separated themselves from the body of the Church, which is made up of the Pope and the bishops in union with him. More directly they are against charity, than against the Faith. Thus, before the First Vatican Council, one would have thought that this referred to someone who held to heresy. A historical example is the act constituted by the "petite église", formed by the bishops and faithful who had not heeded to the decision of Pius VII, when, yielding to the demands of Napoleon, he dismissed all the bishops faithful to the monarchy of Louis XVI. These bishops and faithful did not adhere to any doctrinal error, but did not heed to the Pope's decision. They only had distanced themselves from the Pope and the bishops united with the Pope. It was a schism. It was not a heresy.
"Since the First Vatican Council has defined as a dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff has in the Church, the supreme power of jurisdiction over bishops and faithful, there is no possibility of a schism forming that is not also heresy, which does not reject one truth of faith.
"However, as does heresy, schism, in general, also involves doctrinal disagreement. That's what we mean when we talk about the St. Hippolytus schism in the third century, when the Saint refused to accept the authority of the Pope Saint Callistus. Schism, then could set up a body of doctrine that would pose as a doctrinal lot of the Church, and that, in fact, turns away the purity and integrity of the teachings of the Church.
"In the case of Vatican II, this could and should be appointed as schismatic, since it shows that, in its authentic texts, there are deviations from the  teachings of the Church's traditional faith.
"Now similar dissonance was noted even during the Council's work. It is, moreover, of all known religious freedom, claimed by the council as natural law, even for those who do not comply with the duty to investigate the true religion. In other words, the Council admits that such a right is recognized by all states. This teaching of Vatican is diametrically opposed to the traditional doctrine, renewed by Pius IX in his encyclical 'Quanta Cura'.
"This is one example. There is much more.
"Given this schismatic position of Vatican II, the good of souls requires the absolute need to discard it before taking care of any others that may arise. Incidentally, the Vatican 2 Council must not be presented as a council of the Catholic Church."

Interesting prophecies:

Quote

http://archive.org/stream/CatholicProphecy/CatholicProphecy_djvu.txt

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (Born in the 17th
century, in Germany)

46.3 "During this period the Wisdom of God guides the
Church in several ways: 1) by chastising the Church so that
riches may not corrupt her completely; 2) by interposing the
Council of Trent like a light in the darkness, so that the Chris-
tians who see the light may know what to believe...

46.7 "They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call
it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard
for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the
axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons
and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and
elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however
holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain
free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification,
and delimitation by man.

It is incredible to me that "traditional" theologians such as SSPX think they are above the infallible canons of Trent that need to explain them to the faithful. Same for dogma. The above prophecies are perfectly in line with Vatican I, Pius IX & Pius X.