Archbishop Lefebvre:

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat; can be found in A Bishop Speaks)

Monseigneur Lefebvre:

“ Le problème actuel de la Messe est un problème extrêmement grave pour la Sainte-Eglise. Je crois que si les diocèses, et les séminaires, et les œuvres que l'on fait actuellement sont frappés de stérilité, c'est parce que les déviations récentes ont attiré sur nous la malédiction divine. Tous les efforts que l'on fait pour raccrocher ce qui se perd, pour réorganiser, reconstruire, rebâtir, tout cela est frappé de stérilité, parce qu'on n'a plus la source véritable de la sainteté qui est le Saint-Sacrifice de la Messe. Profané comme il est, il ne donne plus la grâce, il ne fait plus passer la grâce. " (Mgr. Lefebvre, aout 1972, retraite sacerdotale; tiré du livre Un Évêque parle)

Source:

http://laportelatine.org/bibliotheque/oeuvres_mgr_lefebvre/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle.pdf

This can only mean that the Archbishop's sons no longer hold or believe what he taught them, and yet, they all claim to be his successors.

Think about it...............


 :scratchchin:

This is the same "Mass" "legitimately promulgated by Paul VI". Did a Pope promulgate to the Universal Church a rite of Mass that doesn't give grace?

Liturgical matters are matters of discipline, as Bishop Josef Fessler (Secretary to the Vatican Council) observed in his work The True and False Infallibility of the Popes. Before you set up a straw man that "Real Popes don't issue Novus Ordos" check what a real theologian taught (quoting Bellarmine):

(4)  Then in the fourth chapter, entitled ‘On the Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman Pope,’ the Council treats exclusively of the teaching power of the Pope—matters, that is, of the first and second class, faith and morals, not matters of the third and fourth class, i.e. discipline and government.  Accordingly, it is only as regards definitions of the Pope upon faith and morals, that the Council defines, as a proposition revealed by God, that they possess infallible certainly by virtue of the unerring divine assistance promised to the Pope in St. Peter, i.e. as the successor of St. Peter.  Cardinal Bellarmine had already made this distinction, speaking of the doctrine on morals as follows (De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. cap. v.): ‘Non potest errare summus Pontifex in præceptis morum, quæ toti ecclesiæ præscribuntur, et quæ in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis quæ per se bona et mala sunt, versantur.’  What he then says further in this place refers to discipline: ‘Non est erroneum dicere Pontificem in aliis legibus posse errare, nimirum superfluam legem condendo vel minus discretam, &c.  Ut autem jubeat (sc. Pontifex) aliquid quod non est bonum neque malum ex se, neque contra salutem, sed tamen est inutile, vel sub pœnâ nimis gravi illud præcipiat, non est absurdum dicere posse fieri,’ &c. and other theologians follow Bellarmine on this point.

(5)  This Infallibility of the Pope in the exercise of his office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians is, however, still more closely defined as ‘that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be provided in the definition of a doctrine relating to faith or morals.’  Before, then, we proceed to answer the question, how far the Papal Infallibility extends over matters which concern faith or morals, the question arises how far the Infallibility of the Church extends over such matters?  Without entering into the investigation of this very wide question on which much precise information is afforded in all our great theological works, I content myself with selecting the following proposition, universally acknowledged in theology—viz. ‘That even in dogmatic Decrees, Bulls, &c. &c., not all which there in occurs in any one place, not that which occurs or is mentioned incidentally, not a preface, nor what is laid down as the basis of the decree, is to be looked upon as itself a dogmatic definition,[19] and so as matter of Infallibility.[20]

(6)  Lastly, the Council adds that the definitions of the Pope, in which, by virtue of his office as Pastor and Doctor, he lays down a certain doctrine on faith or morals as firmly to be held de fide by all Christians, are per se irreversible, i.e. of their own nature, and not only irreversible when they receive the subsequent asset of the Church.  It is not meant by this that the Pope ever decides anything contrary to the tradition of the Church, or that he would stand alone in opposition to all the other Bishops, but only that the Infallibility of his definition is not dependent on the acceptance of the Church, and rests on the special divine assistance promised and vouchsafed to him in the person of St. Peter for the exercise of his supreme teaching office.[21]  Since, then, it is here expressly said that those definitions on which the Infallibility of the Pope exercises itself are per se unalterable, it follows, as matter of course, that all those laws which are issued from time to time by the Pope in matters of discipline, and which are alterable, are, by the very reason that they are alterable, not included in the de fide definition of the Vatican Council.

Source

As for Sacraments they give grace ex opere operato.

This can only mean that the Archbishop's sons no longer hold or believe what he taught them, and yet, they all claim to be his successors.

Think about it...............

I took your advice and did think about it.

Given the date -1972 - the Archbishop evolved in his theology eventually settling on the issue of the "ministerial intention". A Bishop Speaks is a much earlier work than for example, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics In discussing the question of the new Ordinal the Archbishop focused on the issue of "intention".

I believe +Williamson has frequently commented on the various positions of the Archbishop over time. I suppose it's easy for armchair theologians to speculate with the benefit of hindsight and second guess the Archbishop now. He was, however, confronted with a theological crisis the likes of which he had never dreamed he would experience. In crisis mode one can often say things that with more mature reflection one might wish to disavow or distinguish.

There is no question the Archbishop was faced with a dilemma which we all deal with: Is the hierarchy the Catholic Church or not ? If it is not, then where is the Church ? If it is, than how do we reconcile all the apparent aberrations with the previous Magisterium ?

Pat answers to these questions just do not suffice because theology is incredibly messy and for 1 theologian another 10 can be produced with a different opinion.

I leave it at "we are living through times of diabolical disorientation" - and ultimately the Lord God will sort out this mess because in addition to infallibility the Church is indefectible.

Hmmm...strange...I've read among theologians that the Church can not give error or anything harmful to Catholic faith or morals, as this would be against the Church's indefectibility. Now, granting for the argument's sake that certain things pertaining to discipline are alterable and thus not beyond error, as your source indicates, where does that leave us with the New Mass? If it's from an indefectible Church, then it can't be bad. But if it's evil...

Quote from: ilpadrino

This is the same "Mass" "legitimately promulgated by Paul VI". Did a Pope promulgate to the Universal Church a rite of Mass that doesn't give grace?

Liturgical matters are matters of discipline, as Bishop Josef Fessler (Secretary to the Vatican Council) observed in his work The True and False Infallibility of the Popes. Before you set up a straw man that "Real Popes don't issue Novus Ordos" check what a real theologian taught (quoting Bellarmine):

Quote

(4)  Then in the fourth chapter, entitled ‘On the Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman Pope,’ the Council treats exclusively of the teaching power of the Pope—matters, that is, of the first and second class, faith and morals, not matters of the third and fourth class, i.e. discipline and government.  Accordingly, it is only as regards definitions of the Pope upon faith and morals, that the Council defines, as a proposition revealed by God, that they possess infallible certainly by virtue of the unerring divine assistance promised to the Pope in St. Peter, i.e. as the successor of St. Peter.  Cardinal Bellarmine had already made this distinction, speaking of the doctrine on morals as follows (De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. cap. v.): ‘Non potest errare summus Pontifex in præceptis morum, quæ toti ecclesiæ præscribuntur, et quæ in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis quæ per se bona et mala sunt, versantur.’  What he then says further in this place refers to discipline: ‘Non est erroneum dicere Pontificem in aliis legibus posse errare, nimirum superfluam legem condendo vel minus discretam, &c.  Ut autem jubeat (sc. Pontifex) aliquid quod non est bonum neque malum ex se, neque contra salutem, sed tamen est inutile, vel sub pœnâ nimis gravi illud præcipiat, non est absurdum dicere posse fieri,’ &c. and other theologians follow Bellarmine on this point.

(5)  This Infallibility of the Pope in the exercise of his office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians is, however, still more closely defined as ‘that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be provided in the definition of a doctrine relating to faith or morals.’  Before, then, we proceed to answer the question, how far the Papal Infallibility extends over matters which concern faith or morals, the question arises how far the Infallibility of the Church extends over such matters?  Without entering into the investigation of this very wide question on which much precise information is afforded in all our great theological works, I content myself with selecting the following proposition, universally acknowledged in theology—viz. ‘That even in dogmatic Decrees, Bulls, &c. &c., not all which there in occurs in any one place, not that which occurs or is mentioned incidentally, not a preface, nor what is laid down as the basis of the decree, is to be looked upon as itself a dogmatic definition,[19] and so as matter of Infallibility.[20]

(6)  Lastly, the Council adds that the definitions of the Pope, in which, by virtue of his office as Pastor and Doctor, he lays down a certain doctrine on faith or morals as firmly to be held de fide by all Christians, are per se irreversible, i.e. of their own nature, and not only irreversible when they receive the subsequent asset of the Church.  It is not meant by this that the Pope ever decides anything contrary to the tradition of the Church, or that he would stand alone in opposition to all the other Bishops, but only that the Infallibility of his definition is not dependent on the acceptance of the Church, and rests on the special divine assistance promised and vouchsafed to him in the person of St. Peter for the exercise of his supreme teaching office.[21]  Since, then, it is here expressly said that those definitions on which the Infallibility of the Pope exercises itself are per se unalterable, it follows, as matter of course, that all those laws which are issued from time to time by the Pope in matters of discipline, and which are alterable, are, by the very reason that they are alterable, not included in the de fide definition of the Vatican Council.

Source

As for Sacraments they give grace ex opere operato.

Quote from: JPaul

This can only mean that the Archbishop's sons no longer hold or believe what he taught them, and yet, they all claim to be his successors.

Think about it...............

I took your advice and did think about it.

Given the date -1972 - the Archbishop evolved in his theology eventually settling on the issue of the "ministerial intention". A Bishop Speaks is a much earlier work than for example, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics In discussing the question of the new Ordinal the Archbishop focused on the issue of "intention".

I believe +Williamson has frequently commented on the various positions of the Archbishop over time. I suppose it's easy for armchair theologians to speculate with the benefit of hindsight and second guess the Archbishop now. He was, however, confronted with a theological crisis the likes of which he had never dreamed he would experience. In crisis mode one can often say things that with more mature reflection one might wish to disavow or distinguish.

There is no question the Archbishop was faced with a dilemma which we all deal with: Is the hierarchy the Catholic Church or not ? If it is not, then where is the Church ? If it is, than how do we reconcile all the apparent aberrations with the previous Magisterium ?

Pat answers to these questions just do not suffice because theology is incredibly messy and for 1 theologian another 10 can be produced with a different opinion.

I leave it at "we are living through times of diabolical disorientation" - and ultimately the Lord God will sort out this mess because in addition to infallibility the Church is indefectible.

Curious Trad said:

Quote

Given the date -1972 - the Archbishop evolved in his theology eventually settling on the issue of the "ministerial intention". A Bishop Speaks is a much earlier work than for example, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics In discussing the question of the new Ordinal the Archbishop focused on the issue of "intention".

Archbishop Lefebvre said:

Quote

"It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it."

In his 1986 book: Open Letter to Confused Catholics Ch. III pg. 19. Found online at http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-3.htm)

Copy and paste the link, otherwise it doesn't work.

The operative phrase needs to be bolded:

"It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it."

The Archbishop refers to the context of the Mass and the abuses that often occur which leads to desecration, that can diminish the grace or obviate it completely he is not attributing this to the rite itself (as I read it).

And, in the next chapter, (as I maintained earlier) we read about the issue of "intention":

A Mass celebrated with the American bishop's honeycakes of which I have spoken is certainly, invalid, like those where the words of the Consecration are seriously altered or even omitted. I am not inventing anything, a case has been recorded where a celebrant went to such an extent of creativity that he quite simply forgot the Consecration! But how can we assess the intention of the priest? It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests becomes corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church--which cannot change her intention--has always done. The present-day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses.  They are no longer taught to consider the Holy Sacrifice as the essential action of their priestly life.

Furthermore it can be said without any exaggeration whatsoever, that the majority of Masses celebrated without altar stones, with common vessels, leavened bread, with the introduction of profane words into the very body of the Canon, etc., are sacrilegious, and they prevent faith by diminishing it. The desacralization is such that these Masses can come to lose their supernatural character, “the mystery of faith,” and become no more than acts of natural religion.

All right, curioustrad, I qill have to read it again.

By the way, here is an interesting quote from A Tour of the Summa:

9. The effect of baptism may be blocked, even though the sacrament is validly received, by what St. Augustine calls insincerity. A man may be insincere, with respect to baptism, in four ways: (a) when he does not believe; has not the faith; (b) when he has scorn for the sacrament; (c) when he receives baptism according to an unapproved rite; (d) when he has no devotion.

10. A man who is insincere, in any of these four ways, is validly baptized, and the sacramental character is impressed or imprinted on his soul. But he blocks out the grace and the virtues which the sacrament bestows. When such a man repents, and sincerely receives the sacrament of penance, his baptism will then produce its normal effects in him.

So the "quaestio disputata" with regard to infant Baptisms of schismatics and heretics depends on reason (a) above. The question is whether the Church supplies the Faith in such a case. With regard to those who use an unapproved rite, like Protestants, it also depends on (c), of course, but in all cases on reason (a).

Could you give the reference for this please ? I would like to look this up. What you say suggests that a defective intention could be supplied by the Church. That is a controverted point for the pre-Vatican 2 theologians.

As regards infant Baptism in a Protestant setting "insincerity" would not be in the equation - infants lack the use of reason. St. Augustine would have been addressing adult baptisms, surely.