Father Hesse

[PhuturePriest]

I unfortunately could not message Ark since (s)he has less than 100 messages, and wanting to avoid further hijacking Basilisa's thread, I decided to simply make my own.

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=18m30s

 

At this moment in the video, Father Hesse says thus: "You cannot become a Catholic Priest if you accept Vatican II... You cannot be a Catholic Priest if you approve the Novus Ordo, I proved this yesterday."

He then goes on to say that had Levebre not ordained those four Bishops so they could continue to ordain men who do not accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, the Church would have ended. This clearly implies all ordinations of men who do not hold such views are invalid.

 

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=32m12s

 

I must apologize at this point, because I was wrong. I claimed that Father Hesse says any priests who affirm Vatican II, celebrate the Novus Ordo (Or simply acknowledge it as a real Rite of the Mass), and do not hold that all encyclicals since Vatican II are heretical, are formal heretics. I was wrong: He says they are not even Catholics. To give an exact written quote of everything he says at this point:

"The Fraternity of Saint Peter officially agrees with Vatican II, and officially agrees with the present Pope's (Pope John Paul II) encyclicals, so they (FSSP) are not Catholic -- officially, objectively. They are formally not Catholics -- formally... formally, they are not Catholics. Formally, they are in heresy because they sign and affirm -- officially, formally, objectively, heresy -- which means Vatican II."

 

This implies all Catholics who affirm Vatican II are formal, objective heretics, and are in fact not even Catholic.

 

(By the way, isn't the background from the kind Youtuber so nice and fuzzy?)

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=34m36s

 

"Either you say this (Novus Ordo) is the Liturgy of the Church, which then you might as well say it, or you say what I say which is that it is against Divine Law, which is why I don't celebrate it...The reason I cannot obey the Pope is because I am bound by Divine Law, and the New Rite is against the Divine Law, therefore, I am not allowed to celebrate it -- I commit a sin if I celebrate it. I did celebrate it because I didn't know, so subjectively I did not sin, but objectively it was horrible, what I did. I am ashamed I did not find out earlier."

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=36m16s

 

In the above he claims Ecclesia Dei is null and void.

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=37m24s

 

"The reason I mention them (FSSP and ICKSP) is to explain to you why I want you, if it is possible, to attend the Masses of Saint Pius X... If you happen to live near a chapel of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, and a chapel of the SSPX is two hours away, of course you are allowed to go, provided it is not the indult Mass and they do not provide communion in the hand there. Or if you live around the corner of the indult Mass, and they do not commit sacrilege there, you are allowed to go there, but I warn you there are two dangers: First of all, in their sermons, you cannot be sure you will get the Doctrine of the Church. With the SSPX, even if the sermon there is boring, it will never be against the Doctrine of the Church. With the indult Mass, and even the FSSP, there is a probability that they will tell you the truth, but you don't know."

If you read nothing else, read this, as this is where it gets vitally important, for here is where it gets blatantly schismatic and heretical:

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=39m11s

"And here's another thing: When you go to communion with the SSPX you definitely know that the little Hosts distributed to you were consecrated by one of the priests from the SSPX was in the Old Mass. With the indult Mass, you might get the Host that some liberal hippie 1968 generation Priest, in an invalid celebration, attempted to Consecrate. So they're only cookies -- crackers. With the Fraternity of Saint Peter you can go to communion without hesitation, because if it's their own chapel, if they are not just borrowing the chapel, then it's only them who celebrate there, so the Sacrament is valid. Now as far as the issue of validity is concerned, I highly recommend you read both of Father (I can't make out the name here) 's books, who explains in painful detail and very precisely, and holding all the necessary authority, why the New Mass in the English language is with the highest probability invalid -- "invalid" means the Sacrament is not taking place. It's just like going to the Episcopalian Church except the Rite of the Episcopalians is a lot nicer."
 

The video is not quite over, but there is quite simply nothing more that needs to be said. He claims I and everyone who affirms Vatican II, the Pope's encyclicals, and the Novus Ordo, are formal heretics and not even Catholic. He claims the New Mass doesn't even have a valid Sacrament. Father Hesse was, at best, a material heretic and schismatic, and at worst, a formal one. He was intelligent, pious, and fiercely passionate about the Church -- but he was also misguided, wrong, and led many people into schism. He was the antithesis of everything the traditionalist movement should strive for, and it is people like him who make so many people mistakenly believe that all traditionalists are simply closeted schismatics.

Edited February 23, 2015 by PhuturePriest

[Nihil Obstat]

I would never recommend Fr Hesse to someone not already very knowledgable in the faith. :hehe:

[PhuturePriest]

I would never recommend Fr Hesse to someone not already very knowledgable in the faith. :hehe:

 

I would hesitate to recommend him to anyone at all, personally. I admittedly don't know all about him and haven't heard many talks by him, so it is possible that his intelligence spreads to that of being very good at defending the faith in compelling, concise ways. But I fear using him in those situations would cause people to like him so much that they would begin to overlook the fact that he was, most unfortunately, a material heretic and schismatic, and possibly begin to feel empathetic towards his schismatic leanings and (God forbid) even try and defend them. If I were to ever quote him on something that defended the Faith, it would be an additive upon other people I have quoted, and probably go along the lines of "Even Father Hesse said..."

[Socrates]

Those danged liberal hippie FSSPers!

[PhuturePriest]

In other news, this is the most thorough and researched refutation I have ever given, and it happened after I spent four whole days without even visiting Phatmass.

 

Coincidence? I think not.

[Ark]

Peace be with you PhuturePriest,

 

I unfortunately could not message Ark since (s)he has less than 100 messages, and wanting to avoid further hijacking Basilisa's thread, I decided to simply make my own.

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=18m30s

 

At this moment in the video, Father Hesse says thus: "You cannot become a Catholic Priest if you accept Vatican II... You cannot be a Catholic Priest if you approve the Novus Ordo, I proved this yesterday."

He then goes on to say that had Levebre not ordained those four Bishops so they could continue to ordain men who do not accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, the Church would have ended. This clearly implies all ordinations of men who do not hold such views are invalid.

 

Thank you for pulling the quotes! I hope you don't mind but I only have time to discuss a few of them. Firstly, Fr. Hesse explicitly affirmed that the Novus ordo ordination of priests and sacraments in general are usually valid. "Usually" is used here because there are always exceptions and gray areas.  See the following video at times 58:42 and 1:01:30 respectively:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gPX7XEBdUQ

 

As I understand him, and I am by no means a theologian, Fr. Hesse's position is that Vatican II was not an Ecumenical Council, it was something entirely else, and several *statements* in its documents are at least material heresy and/or blasphemy (Fr. Hesse identifies numerous examples, Gaudium et spes #12 is one of them.) He also identified several statements in John Paul II's Unitatis Redintegratio as being heretical, he uses Section #6 reformulation of doctrine as something that was explicitly condemned as heretical in Mortalium Animos. And so according to his understanding anyone who accepts Vatican II and every encyclical of John Paul II must necessarily at least be a material heretic.  

 

Regarding the Liturgy, as mentioned above Fr. Hesse states the Novus Ordo Mass is valid at least in the Latin text. Some translations, including the English, may have had some problems according to him. As with another theologian, Fr Regis Scanlon, Fr. Hesse's opinion on translating "pro multis" as "for all" can affect the sacrament. Likewise, the intention of the priest that is poorly formed can invalidate the sacrament. So his positions is that safety ought to be found in the SSPX.

 

His opinion overall is that the Novus ordo represents a schismatic rite.

 

All I can say is that Fr. Hesse made some very thought provoking statements. I do not possess the knowledge necessary to even begin refuting him. I second Nihil Obstat's caution that no one should listen to Fr. Hesse without sufficient knowledge, and that includes myself!

 

 

[Catlick]

To my knowledge Mgr. Lefebvre always held the view that there is consecration during the Novus Ordo Mass, i.e. it is a valid rite. And if I remember correctly this position is also defended by FSSPX's current Superior General, Mgr. Fellay.

 

Father Hesse had a very high regard for FSSPX, but also had quite excentric views not shared by Lefebvre et al. E.g. while many FSSPX'er blame John XXIII (or Paul VI) for releasing Modernism in the Church, Father Hesse blamed Pius XII.

[Nihil Obstat]

To my knowledge Mgr. Lefebvre always held the view that there is consecration during the Novus Ordo Mass, i.e. it is a valid rite. And if I remember correctly this position is also defended by FSSPX's current Superior General, Mgr. Fellay.

Father Hesse had a very high regard for FSSPX, but also had quite excentric views not shared by Lefebvre et al. E.g. while many FSSPX'er blame John XXIII (or Paul VI) for releasing Modernism in the Church, Father Hesse blamed Pius XII.

All true, as far as I know.

[Ice_nine]

I think all of this post VII confusion, if we thoroughly analyze the years prior to and following the council (or pseudo-council according to Hesse), that the root of the problem is feminism and women in general.

[Nihil Obstat]

:rolleyes:

[Basilisa Marie]

I would never recommend Fr Hesse to someone not already very knowledgable in the faith. :hehe:

 

Awww, thanks for that sarcastic almost compliment earlier then, friend.  :saint2:  :cheers2:

[Nihil Obstat]

Awww, thanks for that sarcastic almost compliment earlier then, friend.  :saint2:  :cheers2:

:blink: I hope you did not think I was seriously recommending Fr. Hesse for your apologetics class.

Archbishop Lefebvre would be a better choice. Much more pastoral... ;)

Edited February 23, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

So Father Hesse is a material heretic.  Then why, Nihil, would you recommend him to anyone at all? 

[Nihil Obstat]

So Father Hesse is a material heretic.  Then why, Nihil, would you recommend him to anyone at all? 

This sounds like entrapment. <_<

 

I think some of what he says on particular subjects is valuable. But I would only recommend him to someone if I were confident that that person could sort out those things which I do not believe are valuable.

[PhuturePriest]

Peace be with you PhuturePriest,

 

 

Thank you for pulling the quotes! I hope you don't mind but I only have time to discuss a few of them. Firstly, Fr. Hesse explicitly affirmed that the Novus ordo ordination of priests and sacraments in general are usually valid. "Usually" is used here because there are always exceptions and gray areas.  See the following video at times 58:42 and 1:01:30 respectively:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gPX7XEBdUQ

 

As I understand him, and I am by no means a theologian, Fr. Hesse's position is that Vatican II was not an Ecumenical Council, it was something entirely else, and several *statements* in its documents are at least material heresy and/or blasphemy (Fr. Hesse identifies numerous examples, Gaudium et spes #12 is one of them.) He also identified several statements in John Paul II's Unitatis Redintegratio as being heretical, he uses Section #6 reformulation of doctrine as something that was explicitly condemned as heretical in Mortalium Animos. And so according to his understanding anyone who accepts Vatican II and every encyclical of John Paul II must necessarily at least be a material heretic.  

 

Regarding the Liturgy, as mentioned above Fr. Hesse states the Novus Ordo Mass is valid at least in the Latin text. Some translations, including the English, may have had some problems according to him. As with another theologian, Fr Regis Scanlon, Fr. Hesse's opinion on translating "pro multis" as "for all" can affect the sacrament. Likewise, the intention of the priest that is poorly formed can invalidate the sacrament. So his positions is that safety ought to be found in the SSPX.

 

His opinion overall is that the Novus ordo represents a schismatic rite.

 

All I can say is that Fr. Hesse made some very thought provoking statements. I do not possess the knowledge necessary to even begin refuting him. I second Nihil Obstat's caution that no one should listen to Fr. Hesse without sufficient knowledge, and that includes myself!

 

It's either Father Hesse changed his views at one point (In which case, which video of him is the most recent?) or he was confused as to what it is he actually believed. The things he said in my video that I pointed out are indefensible. Anyone who accepts Vatican II as a legitimate council is a formal heretic and not even Catholic. Anyone who attends or celebrates a Novus Ordo Mass is a formal heretic and not even Catholic. Anyone who accepts the Pope's encyclicals from Pope Paul VI down to today is a formal heretic and not even Catholic. The Novus Ordo is against Divine Law, not a true Rite of the Church, and its priests aren't even really priests. Anyone who doesn't hold these views is a formal heretic and not even Catholic.

 

It's all very black-and-white. Father Hesse was at the very least a material heretic, and I don't know why anyone would try and defend him. I'd imagine it's for the same reason I mentioned earlier (i.e. being too affectionate and empathetic for him and thus not being able to see him in a clear lense).