Rorate Caeli

Fellay: "The movement towards reconciliation has been halted"

One of the most important French national dailies, Le Figaro, reports this Monday on the Pentecost weekend Traditionalist pilgrimages in France (the Ecclesia Dei pilgrimage, from Paris to Chartres; and the FSSPX pilgrimage from Chartres to Paris). The most relevant portion of the article, though, are the words of the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, who celebrated Mass for the second group of pilgrims yesterday. Asked about the reconciliation process with the Holy See, he answers:

"My impression," he explains, "is that the movement to reconciliation willed by the Pope has been halted, at the Vatican or elsewhere". He also recognizes, however, that, in any event, "nothing shall come, undoubtedly, before [their] General Chapter".

Does "elsewhere" mean France?...

For extensive information on the upcoming General Chapter of the FSSPX, read this.

41 comments:

Tony La Rosa said...

As long as the SSPX keeps the Faith and true sacraments, it doesn't matter what modern Rome does. We all know that she will return to the Church's bosom in God's own time.

proklos said...

Dieu Merci! I was so afraid that SSPX's leadership would be tricked by this Pope, the most liberal in the entier history of the Church, the first to have embraced publicly the ideals of the French Revolution as enshrined in the US freemason fabricated constitution. But for Bishop Fellay the December 2005 speech before the Curia seems to have been the turning point. Catholics in the US indoctrinated by their secular school system and government propaganda were perhaps insenstive to the meaning of the Pope's speech although r. Alexis Bugnolo knew enough to write a refutation of it on his wensite. The SSPX had long demanded the repudiation of the tenets of Vatican II. The Pope responded by saying: there is wrong interpretation of Vatican II that sees it as a rupture with tradition. But there is a correct interpretation that sees it as continuous with tradition. That correct interpretation is that Vatican II recognized that ideals of the French Revolution was vindicated in the outcome of the American Revolution. This of course was cynical slap in the face to SSPX and its misguided leaders who went to visit the Pope last summer. It was if the Benedict XVI I'll give you a repudiation of Vatican II, if that's what you want. Then to proceeded to present the most radical so-called "re-interpretation" of that Council he could manage. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre told the then Cardinal Ratzinger that even if Rome granted the equivalent of personal prelature, it would be unacceptable because you, Cardinal Ratzinger and I are working for goals that are diametrically opposed. You are working for the de-Christianization of Europe but I for the Christianization of Europe. The msot decisive event for the de-Christianization of Europe was of course the French Revolution. As for the American Revolution, its founders after the Louisiana Purchase proceeded to drive Catholicism out of these newly acquired lands as much as possible. This reign of terror against the Church reached its peak during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson who did his utmost to destory the last Catholic empire in Europe. Even the present Pope's predecessor recognized this much and proceeded to beatify the Last Emperor of that empire Blessed Kaiser Karl of the House of Habsburg, the same House as that of the Royal New Martyr of France, Marie Antoinette. That is why I sayBenedict XVI is the most liberal pope in history. JPII at least had enough sentimental feeling for what Christian King had suffered for the Christianization of Europe to honor hims and not insult his family. So one can only deduce that the Pope has a deep hatred for SSPX and traditional Catholic everywhere, except it would be undiplomatic to show it. So he resorted to the cold, cynical strategy of that speech.

Screwtape said...

EM and Proklos are exactly correct.

The onus probandi rests completely on the shoulders of Rome because the SSPX is following the Magisterium of the Ages and the Vatican, up to and including the Pope, is most assuredly not. Any attempt at reconciling the pre-Vat II Council and the post-Council doctrine and actions is a circle-squaring proposition.

If Rome has decided to halt things it is probably only because it is waiting to see if the General Chapter elects a compromiser.

Who knows? After Compos, anything is possible - but still highly improbable.

Saint Alphonse Liguori's vision, after all, showed a world where the valid, true Mass was not to be found.

sacerdoteaustralis said...

How very sad! The misinformed confuse the doctrine of integralism for the divinely revealed Catholic faith. SSPX is not the Church! Monsignor Lefevbre particpated in and signed most documents of the 21st ecumenical council. It is reasonable and possible to query the interpretation of a council but to reject it outright is an act that has the odour of heresy and schism. Ut unum sint!

Janice said...

Apparently, it's ROME which is not interested. Although I wish Rome would show equal disdain for the dissenters on the left, I cannot disagree with Rome's conclusions. SSPX is filled with arrogance and pride, rather than the humility that should inform them, especially with respect to the successor St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. The childish rant by proklos, that Benedict is not working for the re-Christianization of Europe and that his activities are motivated only by deep cynicism are ridiculous on their face. Pope Benedict's love for the Church and his holiness are evident to all who have eyes to see. That is apparently not evident to the prideful members of SSPX and their fellow travellers.

Tony La Rosa said...

Sacerdoteaustralis,

Please see our post regarding Archbishop's Lefebvre signing of the Vatican II documents.

Ecclesia Militans

Legion of Mary said...

Amen, Janice.

jmcfarla said...

Sad to say, it is our current Holy Father who is the best example of pride and arrogance in the current Church. Consider "Deus est Amor": an exercise in making up his own theology of love, with small to no connection with anything in scripture, tradition and the pre-1962 magisterium. Even as do-it-yourself work goes, it is pretty sorry. The pope's notion that eros is inherently monogamous and heterosexual would have brought a smile to the face of Plato, who probably doesn't use it a dozen times in respect of anything but homoerotic passion. It's the lest of our troubles, to be sure, but everyone needs to understand that on the evidence of Deus est Amor, the Holy Father is something of an intellectual bush leaguer when doing anything but regurgitating the work of the guys whose bags he carried and first drafts he wrote at Vatican II. Meanwhile, all the SSPX aspires to is the teaching and practice of the first 1930 years of the Catholic Church, and it gets treated as the black hat.

Monk of Emmaus said...

What can one expect, when the leadership of the SSPX continually shows disrespect to the Holy Father, the Vatican, and indeed to our Holy Mother the Church. One can disagree fundamentally, but still show the honour due to a father and a mother.

I do no argue that the SSPX need show obedience at this time, but respect and honour. The holy Father is embracing them even though there is not mutual understanding; they need to receive the embrace, learn to love and lead us from the heart of the Church.

jmcfarla said...

It is not easy to figure out how to show respect for one's father when he is not only acting crazy, but allowing or leading almost the entire family to act as crazily if not worse. I simply can't see how the SSPX could do a very much better job than they're doing. The Holy Father's embrace must be avoided as long as its only purpose is to drag Tradition down into the modernist mire where he has spent his entire adult life. It's with the greatest sorrow that I must say that as long as the head is entirely disoriented, the heart must be distrusted. The Pope's magisterium is not the faith of the Church. Unless this is kept firmly in mind, and all action based on it, the end is the modernist mire.

proklos said...

For those who do not recall here is an excerpt of what the Pope said in his speech before the Roman Curia 11 December 2005 defending Vatican II's stand in relation to modern democracy: "Paul VI, in his speech for the Council's closing, then indicated another specific motivation for ... the great debate concerning the human being that characterizes modern times, the Council [sc. Vatican II had ... to raise questions on the relationship between the Church and her faith, on the one hand, and man and the modern world on the other.  The question becomes still clearer, if in the place of the generic term of "today's world", we choose another more precise one: the Council had to find a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the modern age...[with which the Church]  broke completely, when, in the radical phase of the French Revolution, an image of the state and of man was spread that practically intended to crowd out the Church and faith. The clash of the Church's faith with a radical liberalism and also with natural sciences that claimed to embrace, with its knowledge, the totality of reality to its outmost borders, stubbornly setting itself to make the "hypothesis of God" superfluous, had provoked in the 19th century under Pius IX, on the part of the Church, a harsh and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age... However, in the meantime, the modern age also had its development.  It was becoming clear that the American Revolution had offered a model of the modern state that was different from that theorized by the radical tendencies that had emerged from the second phase of the French Revolution... In the period between the two world wars and even more after the Second World War, Catholic statemen had shown that a modern lay state can exist, which nevertheless is not neutral with respect to values, but lives tapping into the great ethical fonts of Christianity.  Catholic social doctrine, as it developed, had become an important model between radical liberalism and the Marxist theory of the state... It could be said that three tiers of questions were formed that now, at the hour of Vatican II, awaited a response.  First and foremost, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between faith and modern science; this regarded, however, not only natural sciences, but also historical sciences because, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed for itself the final words on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding full exclusiveness for its understanding of Sacred Scriptures, it opposed, on important points, the interpretation that the faith of the Church had elaborated.  Secondly, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the modern state, which made room to citizens of various religions and ideologies, acting impartially towards these religions and simply taking on the responsibility for the orderly and tolerant coexistence between citizens and for their freedom to exercise their religion.  To this, thirdly, was connected in a more general way the problem of religious tolerance -- a question that called for a new definition of the relationship between Christian faith and religion in the world.  In particular, in the face of the recent crimes of the National-Socialist regime and, in general, in a retrospective look on a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel." And here is the protestant TS Eliot: "The term 'democracy,' as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike -- it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin."

Screwtape said...

I would like to ask Janice what credentials and/or experience she has regarding the SSPX that she can make such uncharitable and utterly asinine remarks.

Has she read the books of Marcel Lefebvre? Has she heard the conference audio tapes of Bishop Williamson? Has she subscribed to The Angelus? How many SSPX Masses has she attended?

The late Alice Thomas Ellis, wonderful novelist and true Catholic, did a "study" of the Novus Ordo World in England, titled Serpent on the Rock, and came to the correct conclusion that Vatican II and all its aftereffects were so much anti-Catholic junk.

She also wrote a book, I think her last (it was published posthumously) titled God Does Not Change.

I suggest dear Janice do some homework before she shoots her mouth off again.

I've been assisting at an SSPX Mass for five years and never encountered obnoxious pride in my fellows, or, especially, anyone who deserves the epithet "fellow-traveler."

I highly resent that last locution. I've studied the events in Russia and read a good deal about the "fellow-travelers" here and abroad and I know the filthy, stinking implication.

Better not use that term around me, dear, or I'll forget my anti-feminism and knock your block off. Get it? Got it? Good!

Simon-Peter said...

I respectfully disagree with the Holy Father, he is wrong.

Some of his facts are, well, not facts at all, and his opinion and analysis of those things that ARE facts should be treated with a raised eyebrow below a bowed head.

His statements about the American revolution, i.e. masonic-heretic high treason against a lawful (but heretic) monarch, are breathtakingly silly.

His analysis of european society since 1776 (and, frankly, one can adduce before this) is less than consistent with reality.

A feeble attempt at justifying Vat II and justifying the implicit condemnation of the pre-concilair Popes by re-writing about 300 years of european history. His statement is really outre.

Given that the Holy Father is a German, this statement is VERY VERY worrying:

"In particular, in the face of the recent crimes of the National-Socialist regime and, in general, in a retrospective look on a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel."

Is the implication that the Church in someway 1. aided, or 2. facilitated by omission the "recent crimes of the National Socialist regime"? What does this mean exactly? Was the Church guilty of paving the way prior to 1933?

Why must the Church "evaluate and define in a new way" its "relationship" with the "faith of Israel"? Why? What has the Church got to do with the Third Reich?

Can we all see where Mr. Rocco Palmolive (remember him) gets his cue?

I emphasize again that given the Holy Father is a German this is quite worrying...is reminds me of the apparent attitude of a POLISH Pope who due to his personal experience in Poland refused to believe accusations of homosexuality made against the clergy...perfect for the sodomites.

Argh!

Cyprian said...

Janice, you obviously do not understand the Mass to be making such comments. I used to be a member of a Novus Ordo parish and I have been going to the SSPX for years now. The reason I switched is because I saw so much abuse of the liturgy and the Eucharist I had to leave. Even the Tridentine Masses supported by the diocese were done completely wrong. I guess they have never heard the word "rubric". The SSPX is only concerned with upholding the Mass used by the martyrs, saints, and popes of the past. This Mass cannot compare in reverence or beauty to the "new mass". We are not guilty of any pride or whatever you had mentioned before. The fact that we are concerned about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should say something, and I pray everyday that Catholics around the world will discover what is correct, even His Holiness. By the way, it might do you some good to read some of the publications by Bishop Fellay and Williamson. Think about it.

Screwtape said...

S-P and Cyprian, thanks for the corroboration.

We have ample evidence just on this one Posting, by way of several examples, of just how blinding mindless hatred and malice can be.

My prior remarks were neither calm nor explanatory because a), one tires after years of trying to teach the unteachable and reach the unreachable - as William Buckley once explained/complained, it is always the conservatives who have to explain and never the liberals, all they are required to do is announce and their opinions don't have to be based upon anything but what they feel at the moment; and b), the accusation (witting or not) that somehow the SSPX is in league with those who made and ran the GULAG - the term "fellow-traveller" has a very specific historical provenance.

Is it a coincidence that our present Man in Rome implies that the Church Herself might be implicated in any way with the eradication of peoples by Nazi Germany. (Oh, sorry, it was just the Jews, wasn't it.)

In the case of little Janice, at least one may consider the possibility of ignorance. But Ratzinger? (In his case, there is precedence, but that is no excuse.)

Meanwhile: Nemo Me Impune Lacassite!; Nemo Ecclesia Impune Lacassite!

Janice said...

Where to start?

You people in SSPX and "fellow travellers" isolated yourselves from Holy Mother the Church by your own actions. Therefore, you have only yourselves to blame. I will say that you at least have principles, in contrast to the liberal dissenters who never had enough spine to leave the Church but tried to change it from inside.

Simon-Peter, your statements reveal a real deficit in your knowledge of history. Many Roman Catholics, as well as Lutherans and those in the Reformed Churches were guilty of cooperating with the Nazi Regime in Germany and those complicit with it in other countries in the genocide of the Jews, Gypsies, and other groups. That is historical fact. Christians owe their faith to the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Why do you think Holy Father Pius XI said: "Spiritually, we are Semites." In fact, Pius XI was a much stronger defender of the Jews than was Pius XII. Pius XII never did what he could have to save the Jews, either by interdicting those who cooperated with the Nazis or excommunicating the Nazis themselves.

The main problem all you guys have is with religious liberty. That is why Benedict XVI praised the American Revolution (and lose all the Masonic references - that's just a red herring). The United States constitution and the establishment clause allows a space for religious observation without the interference of the state, something I would think you would like. It allows groups to practice their faith without state proscription or the interference from other religious groups. Therefore, YOU can practice your version of Catholicism without Rome's interference in your affairs. You, therefore, have the right not to obey the Holy Father, not to submit in charity to him, to disregard the Petrine doctrine, to ignore Church tradition in favor of your own, man-made interpretation of it, in short, to cast off God's way in favor of your own, with no consequences, at LEAST IN THIS LIFE.

Janice said...

One more comment:

All of you who are so attached to the old rite: as beautiful as it is, remember that in the old petitions for Good Friday, the prayers for the Jews referred to them as the "perfidious Jews." This is sinful and unwarranted and cannot be justified.

The Novus Ordo refers to the Jews as "the first to hear the Word of God." This is beautiful and a statement of fact. We receive our heritage from Abraham, our Father in Faith.

Simon-Peter said...

Janice:

don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs and don't tell me, again, because I am sick and tired of repeating this:

I am not a "member" of the SSPX. I am NOT a feeneyite, I am NOT SV.

"Simon-Peter, your statements reveal a real deficit in your knowledge of history. Many Roman Catholics, as well as Lutherans and those in the Reformed Churches were guilty of cooperating with the Nazi Regime in Germany and those complicit with it in other countries in the genocide of the Jews, Gypsies, and other groups."

Janice: what is your point? If the moderators of this blog had not chosen to delete a post I made a few days ago, on exactly THIS point, then perhaps you wouldn't have made this assertion. Who but a maniac would deny any of this, and it is irrelevant. Hitler and Himmler were Catholics...what is your point? So what? Caiphas was a Jew, so? Pilate was a pagan gentile. So?

In anycase, Janice, I said in what way did the CHURCH - not renegagde members - facilitate the rise of the NSDAP? Answers on the back of a stamp.

Janice: your concept of religious liberty is that of a heretic, period. Errors have no rights. The Pope is mistaken, or, his predecessors were mistaken, they can't all be right. Masonic references are red herrings, good grief. Pathetic.

"Pius XII never did what he could have to save the Jews, either by interdicting those who cooperated with the Nazis or excommunicating the Nazis themselves."

And who did your late hero excommunicate in the USA or eleswhere for their cooperation in the murder of 50 million children? NO ONE. Typical, how typical. Of what crime do you charge Pius XII? You cite Pius IX. What think ye of HIS attitude viz the masons and religious "liberty"?

"All of you who are so attached to the old rite: as beautiful as it is, remember that in the old petitions for Good Friday, the prayers for the Jews referred to them as the "perfidious Jews." This is sinful and unwarranted and cannot be justified."

So you consider the Latin Mass and itself a vehicle for sin? Venial or mortal?

Is "synagogue of Satan" sinful, unwarranted and cannot be justified? Was Peter sinful, unwarranted and unjustified when he told the Jews they were guilty of crucifying the Christ?

Where the jews the FIRST to hear the word of God? I thought it was Gentiles, such as, oh, Noah, Abram, Enoch etc. Or do you mean preaching of Chirst, in which case hearing is one thing, believing is quite another for it was not a Jew who was credited for having a faith not found in all of Israel.

YOUR attitude towards the heretic-masonic US is typcial: american first, catholic second, but what can one expect from a made-up "nation" with zero identity except one based in high treason, hubris and heresy.

I don't take lessons in history from hypocrites who are guilty of treason against their lawful monarch and who turn right around and declare it treason to make war on the very government established by treason.

You think lies and sin and errors have positive rights and the state has an obligation under God to protect and facilitate lies, and errors and sin? Insanity. Or, as one of those nasty pre-concilar Popes said, "religious liberty is insanity."

Feel free to condemn him too Janice.

Janice said...

Simon-Peter,

I cited Pius XI, not Pius IX. In Pius IX's day, "liberal" forces made it necessary for him to issue the Syllabus of Errors. However, as the decades passed, it became clear that "liberalism" was not a monolith. Civilization in the United States was not equivalent to that in Europe which was much more insidious.

I know that both Pius IX and Cardinal Ottaviani both said that "error has no rights." However, both of them made mistakes themselves, both with respect to theology (i.e., the the Thomism of Suarez, which was not grounded either in Thomas or in history) and with respect to the basic rights of human beings. Would they like to be evaluated by the standards they advocated for everyone else? For example, the only reason that papal infallibility garnerned so much attention at Vatican I was that this council was truncated by the Italian Risorgimento and could not complete its work with respect to episcopal collegiality with the Pope (which does not, I must say, take away from the Pope's preeminence or Petrine supremacy). Cardinal Ottaviani's methods in the Holy Office frequently silenced theologians (WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE RIGHT OR WRONG) without due process. When Cardinal Ratzinger headed that office, he was just as stringent on doctrine as Ottaviani had been, he simply thought that persons brought up before him deserved a hearing. What is wrong with that? If God is merciful, why should you be less? Your attitude reminds me of Islamofascism which also thinks that error (or at least the thoughts of those who disagree with it) has no rights.

And, YES, I consider the words "perfidious Jews" sinful and anyone who says them and believes them is a sinner. They have no place in Catholic liturgy. And, YES, the Jews were the first to hear the WORD OF GOD. It says as much in the HEBREW SCRIPTURES, which are the WORD OF GOD.

You can libel Pope Benedict all you want, but that does not make him the heretic you seek to make him. He is a holy, Catholic, God-fearing man, who has listened to the Lord all his life and has made Truth the center of his life. Many preconciliar Popes have not done the same.

Simon-Peter said...

Janice, you're a joke. You have been since you appeared on this blog. You are an apologist for anything that Zenit faxes you.

I said it the first time I came accross your rant about the Mother of God weeks ago: you're a typical unthinking, spoon-fed, novus ordo only fake.

Your attitude to this Pope and the papacy is not Catholic its a parody. If the Holy Father announced in an address to to Roman Curia that Edward Longshanks was really an Irish bogtrotter whose real motivation in suppressing the Welsh was to gain control of the leak market would you believe that? If he sdaid the Phoenix Project was really a Brahmin-inspired attempt to eradicate Vietnamese famers who liked the color red would you believe that? He's not an historian, he s most certainly not infallible as his remarks demostrate.

Your constant references to Ottaviani only underlines how thin and watery is your appreciation of what was happening in the Church prior to John XXIII. You have no clue about vatican I do you Janice, as you have demonstrated before and do so again.

"If God is merciful, why should you be less? Your attitude reminds me of Islamofascism which also thinks that error (or at least the thoughts of those who disagree with it) has no rights."

You are a bewildered woman, totally clueless if you think errors have rights. You have no clue do you what the war against God has been about from the get go do you? Simply because God does not launch thunderbolts and eviscerate me, you, all of us does not imply he condones errors which you seem to think is the case. Since when does a deprivation of good have a right? Your use of Islamofacism is exactly the kind of thing a pseudo-catholic republican would say.

I enoyed your defense of scripture even as you condemn it. Your defense of this Pope even whilst you condemn his predecessors. Your defense of the NO Mass even whilst you condemn the Latin.

Obey Paul and keep your mouth shut, stick to teaching children and mildwey youth Janice.

"However, both of them made mistakes themselves, both with respect to theology (i.e., the the Thomism of Suarez, which was not grounded either in Thomas or in history) and with respect to the basic rights of human beings. Would they like to be evaluated by the standards they advocated for everyone else? For example, the only reason that papal infallibility garnerned so much attention at Vatican I was that this council was truncated by the Italian Risorgimento and could not complete its work with respect to episcopal collegiality with the Pope (which does not, I must say, take away from the Pope's preeminence or Petrine supremacy)."

You're funny though, I'll give you that.

Janice said...

Simon-Peter,

I'll give you this: You're better off in your hermetically-sealed, golden-age world. Out here in the real world where real Catholics are trying to re-evangelize Europe, Australia, and America, and where real Catholics pay due deference and give respect to the successor of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, you sit in the peanut gallery, passing judgment on us, while doing nothing but constructing faulty theology and perilously close to anti-Semitic readings of Scripture.

May God have mercy on your soul.

jmcfarla said...

Janice,

Maybe the place to start is Acts 2. There it states that on Pentecost morning, St. Peter told the assembled Jews and proselytes in as many words that they were Christ-killers, but that God had made both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom they crucified. When they asked what they must do, he told them to repent (that is, of their complicity in Christ's death) and be baptized.

Then you should go on to read the things that Jesus says to the unbelieving Jews in St. John's gospel, or his sevenfold curse upon the Pharisees in St. Matthew's. Some of them make St. Peter's Pentecost sermon seem downright tame by comparison.

Some of the other folks haven't been very nice to you, and should apologize. But it's the result of frustration at the fact that you're absolutely sure you have the faith, but you're absolutely wrong. The faith of the conciliar church is counterfeit coin, and you've taken it as the real thing. You have to go back to square one and understand what the real faith is. In this exercise, you can do no better than to start reading everything on www.sspx.org, and go from there. You'll have my prayers, and I daresay of many of your interlocutors.

Simon-Peter said...

"passing judgment on us"

thats not self-conscious irony is it Janice?

In anycase Janice, "passing judgment" is not the same as judging or discernment but is synonymous with condemnation. Whom did I condemn?

Is this ironic?

"here in the real world where real Catholics"?

As to this:
"May God have mercy on your soul."

Only someone who doesn't actually mean it, says it, it trips sooo easily off the tongue doesn't it? Are you condemning me Janice? No, of course not: overflowing with the milk of feminized & sodomite novus ordo kindness, that's you.

Must be comforting to know you're in big with Jesus. You're a typical Novus Ordo revisionist, who ever said anything about a Golden Age? You did. You tilt at windmills constantly and you'll say anything to justify whatever novelty comes down the turnpike.

I'l bet you watch EWTN.

Anyway Janice, in Poland His Holiness said that religious liberty is not a moral right, which means it is no right at all. At best it merely affords a practical opportunity for Catholics to evangelize.

Errors have no rights, false religions are suffered to exist, but they have no right to exist.

Ian Andrew Palko said...

Janice,

I'm not going to pick at every point you made, but just one.

You say you consider the phrase "perfideous Jews" sinful.

Do you realize the ramification of that statement?

If that phrase is sinful, every priest since 1570, and for a number of centuries before, perhaps even as far back as St. Gregory the Great has been committing a sin within the Good Friday Liturgy.

Are you willing to assert that?

Simon-Peter said...

"passing judgment on us"

thats not self-conscious irony is it Janice?

In anycase Janice, "passing judgment" is not the same as judging or discernment but is synonymous with condemnation. Whom did I condemn?

Is this ironic?

"here in the real world where real Catholics"?

As to this:
"May God have mercy on your soul."

Only someone who doesn't actually mean it, says it, it trips sooo easily off the tongue doesn't it? Are you condemning me Janice? No, of course not: overflowing with the milk of feminized & sodomite novus ordo kindness, that's you.

Must be comforting to know you're in big with Jesus. You're a typical Novus Ordo revisionist, who ever said anything about a Golden Age? You did. You tilt at windmills constantly and you'll say anything to justify whatever novelty comes down the turnpike.

I'l bet you watch EWTN.

Anyway Janice, in Poland I think His Holiness said that religious liberty is not a moral right, which means it is no right at all. At best it merely affords a practical opportunity for Catholics to evangelize. I could be wrong. Tomorrow I could be right. Who knows?

Stick your finger in the air.

Janice said...

Hello Ian,

Of course, one has to allow for the lack of understanding of some in times past, but generally speaking, certainly it is a sin to use the phrase "perfidious Jews."

Our Lord was a Jew. We are children of Abraham, just as He was. He never abrogated His heritage. As he said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. (Matt. 5.17)” We should take Our Lord at His word. In Him are summed up all the Covenants (creation, Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.). Judaism is a river that flows into Christianity. As the Magisterium has affirmed in its publication: "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (Vatican City, 2001): "The New Testament writings were never presented as something entirely new. On the contrary, they attest their rootedness in the long religious experience of the people of Israel, an experience recorded in diverse forms in the sacred books which comprise the Jewish Scriptures. The New Testament recognises their divine (#3)."

To present our Fathers in the faith as the "perfidious Jews" cannot be anything BUT sinful. I cannot believe that people of times past did not recognize that. It is a legacy of the medieval period, yes that Golden Age, where Jews were herded into ghettoes, by so-called Christians. It was a disgrace then and remains one today.

If there is a universal indult, which I am very much in favor of, that phrase must be expunged.

jmcfarla said...

Janice,

You also need to take a look at Romans 2, where St. Paul states flatly the true Jews are those who do God's will. It follows that we faithful Jews and Gentiles are the real Jews; the new Israel.

Recall also St. Stephen's denunciation of the Jews just before his lynching: uncircumcised in heart. But that means that at heart, they're no Jews at all. Indeed, his whole speech is an indictment of Jewish perfidiousness.

Or consider the image of the olive tree in Romans 11, from which the Jewish branches are broken off, and the Gentile wild olive branches grafted in. What does that tell you about the status of the unbelieving Jews? What the the relation between a branch and the tree from which is has been broken off? For that matter, read all of Romans 9-11. It stands for the proposition that without faith, being Jewish is worth nothing.

And what do you make or Jesus' remark in Matthew 8, apropos of the faith of the centurion that many will come from the east and the west and recline with the patriarchs, while the children of the kingdom will be cast out into the exterior darkness.

The true sons of Abraham are those who share his faith, whether Jew of Gentile. Those Jews who do not share his faith -- the perfidious Jews -- are broken branches, uncircumcised in heart, cast forth into the exterior darkness. They are called perfidious on Good Friday because they are, in the course of a prayer to God that they may come to the faith and so avoid hell.

On your argument, all the passages I've quoted must be torn from the scriptures, just as "perfidious" must be torn from the new, improved indult. If you take this route, there's nothing to choose between you and the most hydrophobic liberal.

Screwtape said...

Dear S-P and Jmc:

Nice try. Now you see what I mean and why I no more make effort.

Well, it was a revealing exchange, even if severely disheartening.

There is a total lack of comprehension; it is almost ubiquitous; and, I don't really understand it at all. What I do know is that there is absolutely no sense in trying to get through.

After all, it was Paul who said that after three tries, it's dust kickin' time.

Ian Andrew Palko said...

Janice,

Let us use a bit of logic here.

You again assert that the phrase "perfideous Jews", which simply is "faithless Jews", is sinful without exception. You provide plenty of text, yet you miss the entire point.

The phrase is part of a rite, made mandatory in the Latin Church by Pope St. Pius V, and on the orders of the Council of Trent. No Pope until John XXIII made any change to that text. The phrase existed in the rite before 1570, and probably from nearly Apostolic times, since the Good Friday Litutgy (until 1955) follow the structure that the earliest liturgies followed. For your benefit, let us start at this point. The document Quo Primum Tempore (1570) makes mandatory that rite, and that phrase. Your assertion then is that the Pope, and a Saint is guilty not just of sin, but of encouraging and even requiring sin of every Latin Rite priest. This was the case for 400 years!

Does this fall under your "Dark Ages theory"? Was it somehow not a sin for 400 years, but now after some "enlightenment" most certainly a sin? If so, please explain to me where the Church defined this change, or at what point it became a sin. I don't need text saying that Christ came to fulfill the law, and the New Testament builds on the old ... a ten-year old knows that, I want you to cite the document or "englightening" event that made the phrase "faithless Jews" a sin to say.

I'll also ask you: is using the phrase a mortal or venial sin?

By making the argument you are, you are also inadvertently accepting the argument that the Novus Ordo Missae could very well be sinful. Certainly you would not agree, yet your arugument based on the same principles, even the same major and minor premise, just a different object. Since you assert that a Pope can promulgate a rite that is per se sinful, you then accept that it is possible that the Novus Ordo is per se sinful, due to some lack of clairity, or some ambiguous statement, such as the "Mystyery of Faith".

You would assert that I am in no way capable of judging the Pope, and I would not make that argument, yet, in this manner, but you presume to do the same that you would condemn.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

... or is that a racist statement?

Screwtape said...

Ian:

You aren't listening.

One is not required to continue to attempt reasonable argument against the unbending brick wall.

It's no longer charity; just a singular waste of time.

Logic! Surely you jest. What is logic to Janice or Janice to logic that she should adhere to it?

Janice said...

For your information, the Jews still have an operative covenant. In the Vatican II documents Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium(no. 16) that “the people to whom the covenants and the promises were given... remain, on account of their fathers, most dear to God because God does not repent of his gifts.” Therefore, it would be presumptuous of you to ascribe sin to the Jews collectively. This is the road to the Shoah.

Ian Andrew Palko said...

Janice,

You have not answered my questions, which are important. I have taken more than enough time to point out a glaring hole in your argument, yet you continue with your diatribe and ignore my points.

You said "the Jews still have an operative convenant".

Your statement is tantamount to heresy, for if the Jew is saved by the Law, after Our Lord came to fulfill the law (his own words), then there is no necessity for his coming anyway.

The documents you cite, do not affirm what you think they do. You add your own interpretation and then concluions. The Jews may be close to God in a particular way, but they are not saved by the Old Law, except by true invincible ignorance. The Old Covenant was fulfilled (not destroyed), the veil of the temple (the Holy of Holies) was rent in two (exposing the Holy of Holies -- a symbol of the body of our Lord -- to the whole world) and that New Covenant was sealed in Our Lord's Precious Blood. Our Lord cut off the faithless from "his own people [who] recieved him not", and grafted onto the tree of the Fathers any who would accept the New Covenant and the Church.

That said, if you want to recant that probably heretical statement, I would be happy to continue discussion. Until then, I'm not willing to waste any more of my time on a prideful mule of an armchair theologian, and someone who seems to hate her heritage.

In charity, I must warn you: You should be very careful, Janice. The way God tends to deal with Intellectual Pride is most often to send Spiritual Blindness, since such people don't really want His light anyway.

You say things that make it seem you think you know better than Saints, Bishops, Popes, and Theologians of a millenia. You know better than all of Church history. If you want to keep that attitude, that's your call, but you should know what the consequences of such is.

May God keep you and soften your heart.

Simon-Peter said...

Janice, you have more guts than most men I know, quite astonishing.

As someone who for over a year after his conversion was guilty of a rank material heresy, e.g. I still comprehended the cross in protestant legal terms rather than appeasement and propitiation, let me say this.

You state that the Jews still have an operative covenant. This is a true statement, IF and ONLY IF, any Jew who actually fulfills the law is ALSO invincibily ignorant, that is, ignorant through no fault of his own.

However, the VII cites you provide fail to mention this even if they suuport your position that the Old Covenant is still salvific...which, of course, it never was and never could be without the merits of the Cross being applied across time to those whom Christ freed after descending to the dead...which is exactly the point about any Jew today who does actually mamange to keep the law but who is NOT invincibly ignorant...

As a general proposition, the Old Covenant has been superceded, it's over, period, and it is not salvific unless a jew be 1. invincibily ignorant, 2. worship God according to a. (in the jews case) the law of God as revealed in the OC & b. written in the heart, & 3. he die not in mortal sin (which presuposes 2. b for all men, and 2.a & b for the jew) & 4. we are not to hold out a good hope for this & 5. we are not to enquire further.

"“the people to whom the covenants and the promises were given... remain, on account of their fathers, most dear to God because God does not repent of his gifts.”

First, this does not prove that the OC is still salvific. It states that the Jews (assuming they are real Jews) are dear to God and this ONLY because of their fathers...and prophets, who they never tired of persecuting and killing.

Second, you say, "Therefore, it would be presumptuous of you to ascribe sin to the Jews collectively. This is the road to the Shoah." No, the Jews are guilty of collective sin, if by this you mean the sin of their / our origin in Adam's loins...and so are we all and we make it our own when after baptism we commit our first mortal sin.

Third, if you mean by collective sin that the Jews today are NOT guilty of the blood of Christ, cf. "may his blood be upon us and our children" my question is: what is the constant teaching of the fathers and doctors of the Church on what this means and its parameters AND does this mean that they are worse than a Catholic who commits a mortal sin, er, such as me? What does the statement mean? Which children? When Titus and Vespasian razed Jerusalem did this end it? There were many alive between 69-71 AD who were not alive when this was said.

You believe that Auschwitz-Birkenau is the logical conclusion to the Church's efforts to segregate Jews and hold them at arms length during the middle ages onward?

Following Paul in Romans who wrote at the dictation of the Paraclete it is clear that there are things in store for the Jews and that we are not to boast. That is one thing. It is quite another to toss the baby out withy the bathwater.

However, in so far as a person who is a Jew is a practicing Jew it is wise to treat them with extreme caution for Jews have proven themselves singularly at enmity with the body of Christ since some of them murdered Stephen and motivated by satan set about destroying the fledgling Church throughout Asia-minor etc.

And why would we expect any less when the point of contention is that God was murdered by the council, consent and provocation of some Jews. I can only imagine what I would think if it was the case that He was murderd by Anglo-Saxons atop Glastonbury Tor. Maybe my instinctive abhorance at such a suggestion would lead to a visceral and uncritical rejection of the claims that He was God.

All men, whether jew or greek must convert. To believe the Old Covenant is ipso facto salvific is apostasy and uncharitable to Jesus and to the Jews.

hollingsworth said...

Janice: "For your information, the Jews still have an operative covenant."

They do? Then I must open my New Testament and re-examine its contents, particularly the letters of St. Paul. I could have sworn that he taught that the old Jewish, Mosaic Covenant had been abrogated

Matt said...

SP et al: You are demonstrating that there is pride and arrogance in the traditional movements by your lack of humility and charity in dealing with Jance. Shame on you.

Janice: in Charity, you are makings some fundamental errors, perhaps a less arrogant response will help you reconsider the truth of the arguments.

1. Pope Pius XII - he did more to save the Jews during the Shoah than anyone else, according to all honest accounts including the surviving Jews (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482112058&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). You are being influenced by anti-Catholic rhetoric.

2. The Tridentine Mass - we do not favor the old mass because of it's aethestic beauty, but because of it's theological superiority. I'd urge you to read LG's commentary which is very charitable (http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=15)

3. "Perfidious jews" in the Good Friday liturgy refers to those Jews responsible for the death of Christ which that day commemorates. It does not judge all Jews of all times, as the Church is not sanctioned to do such a thing.

4. While Jews who are invincibly ignorant of the True Church may be saved by following the prescripts of the Old Law, that in no way means the Old Covenent isn't completely fulfilled in Christ. The VII documents you cite don't suggest that either, only that they are still God's chosen people, and precious to him.

Screwtape said...

Matt:

If, after what "Jance" has said over a long period of time, now, what S-P et. al. (meet et.al.) are demonstrating is pride and arrogance, then you are saying we must avoid defending the Church, let-alone ourselves. Nuts to that.

When, can you demonstrate? did "Jance" ever exhibit any inclination to conduct reasonable or logical colloquy?

I'm not from Missouri, but you still have to show me. And while you're doing that, learn the distinction between being "nice" and true charity. We are to "correct our brother" and when "our brother" acts in a certain way "our brother" needs and gets a board between the eyes. Or as the old farmer said to his complaining new wife after he'd shot the mule: "That's once!"

hollingsworth said...

Matt writes: The VII documents you cite don't suggest that either, only that they (Jews) are still God's chosen people, and precious to him.

That the Jews are "still God's chosen people" is problematic. Under the New Covenant, both Jews and Greeks who receive Christ are now God's chosen people. To my understanding. the Jews no longer own any exclusive right to chosenness.

Simon-Peter said...

Right.

In so far as I have offended God and Janice either by 1. what I have said, and or 2. the manner I said it, I do sincerely apologise.

Tinkling brass even assuming the major premise.

Anyway, the World Cups started.

Screwtape said...

S-P:

If you have offended God, that is strictly between thee and thy confessor, if thou art fortunate enought to have found a reliable one.

If you have offended Janice, what the hell are you apologizing about? There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING any remotely traditional or orthodox Catholic who doesn't hate the Latin Mass can think say or do that does NOT offend an NO.

I mean, like man, you do exist, vous pas? Well, how DARE you!

Jeff said...

Here is what Ratzinger says about this question in his EWTN interview a couple of years ago. He doesn't seem from this or his other writings to be quite on EITHER side in this argument. Both sides are, I hazard, being just a tad too simplistic, though I think the "invincible ignorance" bit approaches what might be the best formulation. Interestingly, Ratz declines ANY formulation:

"Raymond: Very important. In God And The World, you reflect a little on Dominus Jesus, a document released in 2000. It was greeted with some controversy, because in it you said, “God did not revoke His covenant to the Israeli people, or the people of Israel, rather; but that Jesus is the Messiah for everyone and therefore, conversion was still necessary, or should be a possibility.” How do you reconcile those two ideas?

Cardinal: Perhaps, it’s not our possibility to reconcile it, to leave it to God. Because two things are very clear in the Holy Scripture. In the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, he clearly says, “The fidelity of God is absolutely clear. He is faithful to His promises.” And so, the people of Abraham are always God’s people, on the one hand. And he says also clearly, “All Israel will be saved.” But, it’s also clear that Jesus is the Savior, not only of the other peoples, He is a Jew and He is the Savior, especially of His Own people.” St. Bernard of Clairvaux said, “God saved, reserved for Himself, the salvation of Israel. He will do it in His Own Person.” And so, we have to leave it to God’s Self, see, convinced and knowing that Christ is Savior of all of His Own people, and of all people. But how He will do it is in God’s Hand.

Raymond: But it is the Church’s responsibility to make the Gospel available, and the message available to the Jewish people.

Cardinal: Yes. It is absolutely important to make accessible the Gospel for all people and also understandable for Jewish people. I do not know if you perhaps have seen the new book of Cardinal Lustiger where he relates a promise and in a very touching way describes his own experience, and shows how we can understand the Old Testament is speaking of Christ and to also possibly to make accessible and available that in their own holy books of Israel, Christ is speaking at present. So, this is really a duty of the Church to make this available and to make understandable that He is the Savior, even of His Own people."

Ratzinger-Arroyo Interview

Jeff said...

Sorry. I forgot to say, "Italics mine"