SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
#1

From the UK's Catholic Herald:



SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
By Carol Glatz on Friday, 4 January 2013


The head of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X has called Jewish people “enemies of the Church”, saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s”.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, said those most opposed to Rome granting canonical recognition to the SSPX have been “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists”.

Vox Wrote:Romans 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers."  Note the latter half of that verse, however. And, to be clear to those reading over our shoulders, this speaks of those who follow the post-Temple Jewish religion (Pharisaic rabbinism, based on the Talmud), NOT the Jewish people as an ethnic group or a "race". All people are called to Christ and we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and love our enemies, too.

He said these people, “who are outside of the Church, who over centuries have been enemies of the Church”, urged the Vatican to compel the SSPX to accept Vatican II.

Vox Wrote:There's that sloppy language again:  "accept Vatican II." That says and means nothing. Accept what about Vatican II? These things need to be laid out very clearly and succinctly. Sloppy talk like that gets us nowhere.

He made the comments during a nearly two-hour talk at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario, Canada.

In it he said he had been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the Church.

He said top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI’s true feelings.

Vox Wrote:That's an odd sentence. "Official statements from the Vatican" don't reflect His Holiness's true feelings? Hmmm...

The Vatican press office declined to comment today on the claims. There has been no response from the society’s Swiss headquarters to a Catholic News Service email request for comment.

Pope Benedict launched a series of doctrinal discussions with the SSPX in 2009, lifting excommunications imposed on its four bishops, who were ordained in 1988 without papal approval, and expressing his hopes they would return to full communion with the Church.

In 2011, the Vatican gave SSPX leaders a “doctrinal preamble” to sign that outlines principles and criteria necessary to guarantee fidelity to the Church and its teaching; the Vatican said the SSPX leaders would have to sign it to move toward full reconciliation.

But Bishop Fellay said he repeatedly told the Vatican that the contents of the preamble – particularly acceptance of the modern Mass and the council as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church – were unacceptable.

He said the only reason he continued discussions with Vatican officials was because others “very close to the Pope” had assured him that the Pope was not in agreement with hard-line official pronouncements from the Vatican.

[html]According to Bishop Fellay, retired Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, then president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the office responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics, had told him in March 2009 that the society would be formally recognised.

When the bishop asked how that could be possible when recognition hinged on accepting the teachings of Vatican II, he said the cardinal replied that such a requirement was only “political” and “administrative” and that, “by the way, that is not what the Pope thinks”.

Bishop Fellay said he continued to get similar messages from other Vatican officials, even as the formal talks continued. The verbal and written messages were very credible, he said, because they came from officials who saw the Pope “every day or every two days.”

He said he wouldn’t give names, but he did claim “the secretary of the Pope himself” was among those who told him not to worry too much about hardline Vatican positions.

Even if the doctrinal congregation ruled against the society, he claimed the secretary told him, the Pope “will overrule it in favour of the society”. [/html]

“So, you see, I got all of these kinds of messages which were not fitting together,” Bishop Fellay said. “I got an official thing where I clearly have to say ‘no’ and I got other messages – which are not official, of course – but which say, ‘No, that’s not what the Pope wants.’”

The unofficial assurances were what kept him engaged in talks, he said, since the Vatican’s official demands, which carried the Pope’s approval, “would mean the end of our relation with Rome”.

The Vatican has not made the preamble public, but said it “states some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church, including the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and that it leaves room for “legitimate discussion” about “individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium” of the Church.

Vox Wrote:I so wish that preamble were made public!

Bishop Fellay said Pope Benedict wrote to him, emphasising that full recognition required the society accept the magisterium as the judge of what is tradition, accept the Council as an integral part of tradition and accept that the modern Mass is valid and licit.

Vox Wrote:  The SSPX already accepts that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit.

Bishop Fellay said: “Even in the Council there are some things we accept,” as well as reject, however, the group wishes to be free to say, “there are errors in the Council” and that “the new Mass is evil”.

Vox Wrote:I wish Bishop Fellay hadn't called the new Mass "evil." That sounds wrong in fact and unecessarily inflammatory. It's crazily deficient in a million ways, but "evil"?

The group will not accept reconciliation if it means no longer being able to make such pronouncements, he said.
Reply
#2
Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.
Reply
#3
IF the article can be verified then this will be the end of the talks with this Pope. In the end the death knell is not the NO or Vat II being infallible (my term), it is that that little 3 or 4 letter word that I would not type.

There are few unforgivable sins in the Conciliar Church, but his Lordship (at least for now contributed to him) has committed the unforgivable sin.
Reply
#4
"Jews are enemies of the Church."  In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.
Reply
#5
I wonder if Fellay realizes that he will never again be looked at with a straight face by any conciliarist, Least of all the Pope. He has committed the unpardonable sin of not bowing to talmudism. Truth has no place in Conciliarism.
When one reads the article the thing about the "chosen ones" is tiny compared to the whole article yet that is what gets all the attention. Just shows who's really running the show.
Reply
#6
(01-04-2013, 11:59 PM)MRose Wrote: Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.

I think this oversimplifies the issue. As St. Thomas says:
ST I q48 a4 Wrote:Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good which is the subject of evil; for by darkness the substance of the air is not injured. And there is also a kind of good which is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away; and this good is the aptitude of a subject to some actuality.

A blanket condemnation of the NO as "evil" lacks precision. If the NO is deficient in some respect, and I believe that it is, then it would not be incorrect to say that there are evils in the NO where particular goods are lacking, but simply condemning the NO as evil without qualification seems to be inaccurate, especially if one believes it to be a valid liturgy. It would be like calling a man evil because he occasionally lacks imprudence. Obviously, a lack of prudence is a privation of good, but this does not mean that the man is an evil monster who cannot be distinguished from Hitler or Stalin. I am also not sure that simply calling something "evil" without qualification is likely to lead to fruitful arguments or convince anyone who does not already agree. But if one does want to say that the NO is evil while maintaining that this is an objective and disinterested statement, I think one would at least need to be a little more precise.

I think there might also be a tendency here to confuse moral evil with a broader definition of evil. For example, St. Thomas uses the example of blindness above, which is an evil but not a moral evil. Obviously, we would never say that a blind man is evil because he is blind. Presumably, the evils that are to be found in the NO are evil not in the moral sense, but in the broader sense that includes things like blindness and illness. If this is so, then it would seem to be incorrect to refer to the NO as evil on account of the deficiencies to which it is subject.
Reply
#7
(01-05-2013, 12:27 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: "Jews are enemies of the Church."  In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.
Not all Jews are enemies of the Church. and if we treat them as if they were we create a barrier to our evangelization. Wh would want to be part of a group whose attitude is to say, "You are my enemy?"
Reply
#8
Actually, it's not just the Jews, It's also the Masons and the Modernists.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/b...he-church/
Reply
#9
(01-04-2013, 11:59 PM)MRose Wrote: Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.

It'd be better to call it a lesser good because what does exist of the Novus Ordo is not a privation of good in itself . Plus, as you mention, the emotional reactions to the word make using it to describe the Novus Ordo imprudent, IMO.

Reply
#10
(01-05-2013, 03:59 AM)Poche Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 12:27 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: "Jews are enemies of the Church."  In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.
Not all Jews are enemies of the Church. and if we treat them as if they were we create a barrier to our evangelization. Who would want to be part of a group whose attitude is to say, "You are my enemy?"
St. Paul realized he was the enemy of the Church, and he converted and became one of the greatest of all Saints.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)