SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
#21
(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.

I disagree.

"Rabbinic Judaism in doctrinally opposed to the Catholic Faith" I could agree with. But "Jews" refers to a lot of people of different beliefs today. Some identify as ethnically Jewish and yet are Catholics. I suspect for most Jews, the Catholic Faith is just not "on their radar."

Even if some prominent churchmen today seem to flirt with religious indifference in their attempts to befriend Jewish leaders, we shouldn't react by holding the Jews at arm's length. That will not aid their salvation or ours.
Reply
#22
(01-05-2013, 11:32 AM)mikemac Wrote: It seems to me that the Vatican has chosen the Jews over Catholics. 

I grant that what I said above nonwithstanding, it does feel this way sometimes and I don't like it. I try to remind myself that when my parents had a guest over when I was a child, they paid more attention and courtesy to the guest than me, their own son. This was because they knew they had authority over me and counted on my obedience, but they still had to win over the guest. I think this is the most charitable way to view the Church's attitudes towards various groups in recent decades.
Reply
#23
" The SSPX already accepts that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit."

Is it possible for a Mass to be licit and evil at the same time?
Reply
#24
(01-05-2013, 12:08 PM)Old Salt Wrote: " The SSPX already accepts that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit."

Is it possible for a Mass to be licit and evil at the same time?

Licit means permissible. Which is to say, IMHO, it conforms to the minimum requirements of the law. At least that is how I read it in this context.

I am currently listening to a one hour and 38 minute talk from Montreal. In it, +Fellay states that he seriously underestimated the amount of diocesan priests who believe in the real presence. He thought it would be about 40% who do not believe in the real presence. Turns out he was told it was 80% do not believe in it.

It was the Mass that did most to undermine this Faith in the reality that Christ comes down to our Altars.

That would make it licit and evil. Lots of things are licit and evil.

Bishop Fellay did not say it was valid. He said we call it "licit".
Reply
#25
So again, please explain to me how Christs Sacrifice on Calvary shedding His blood for men, and having an infinite value,
can be called "evil"?
Reply
#26
(01-05-2013, 12:39 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 12:08 PM)Old Salt Wrote: " The SSPX already accepts that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit."

Is it possible for a Mass to be licit and evil at the same time?

Licit means permissible. Which is to say, IMHO, it conforms to the minimum requirements of the law. At least that is how I read it in this context.

I am currently listening to a one hour and 38 minute talk from Montreal. In it, +Fellay states that he seriously underestimated the amount of diocesan priests who believe in the real presence. He thought it would be about 40% who do not believe in the real presence. Turns out he was told it was 80% do not believe in it.

It was the Mass that did most to undermine this Faith in the reality that Christ comes down to our Altars.

That would make it licit and evil. Lots of things are licit and evil.

Bishop Fellay did not say it was valid. He said we call it "licit".
The Church does not allow anything that is legal to also be evil, in Her rites.
Reply
#27
(01-05-2013, 12:46 PM)Old Salt Wrote: So again, please explain to me how Christs Sacrifice on Calvary shedding His blood for men, and having an infinite value,
can be called "evil"?

He did not call that evil.

He said the new Mass, which is licit, also has led to great loss of Faith. That is the evil part.

I suppose it is also evil in the nonchalantness in which the Sacrifice is received by the great majority.

You are either going to get this, or you are not.

Read Psalm 104 or 105. In the Church of Promise, the Israelites consistently sinned even after seeing the real presence of God taking care of their enemies. He did not abandon them. God has great patience for all of us, until of course, time is up.

Reply
#28
(01-05-2013, 12:06 AM)Lateran15 Wrote: 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.

I think the talks ended a few months ago.  And Bishop Fellay never actually got to meet the Pope.  So "talks" is a bit of a misnomer.

That they could not discuss it man to man tells you all you need to know about what the Pope thinks of 500 odd priests and 1 million Catholics attending their masses.  There was never a chance because the two positions are irreconcilable.  One is right, one is wrong.
Reply
#29
(01-05-2013, 12:04 PM)Richard C Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 11:32 AM)mikemac Wrote: It seems to me that the Vatican has chosen the Jews over Catholics, the SSPX. 

I grant that what I said above nonwithstanding, it does feel this way sometimes and I don't like it. I try to remind myself that when my parents had a guest over when I was a child, they paid more attention and courtesy to the guest than me, their own son. This was because they knew they had authority over me and counted on my obedience, but they still had to win over the guest. I think this is the most charitable way to view the Church's attitudes towards various groups in recent decades.

I could accept that if the Vatican was still trying to bring the Word of the Lord to the Jews and other groups, but they seem to have given up on that which was a commission given to them and us by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Reply
#30
(01-05-2013, 12:49 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 12:39 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 12:08 PM)Old Salt Wrote: " The SSPX already accepts that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit."

Is it possible for a Mass to be licit and evil at the same time?

Licit means permissible. Which is to say, IMHO, it conforms to the minimum requirements of the law. At least that is how I read it in this context.

I am currently listening to a one hour and 38 minute talk from Montreal. In it, +Fellay states that he seriously underestimated the amount of diocesan priests who believe in the real presence. He thought it would be about 40% who do not believe in the real presence. Turns out he was told it was 80% do not believe in it.

It was the Mass that did most to undermine this Faith in the reality that Christ comes down to our Altars.

That would make it licit and evil. Lots of things are licit and evil.

Bishop Fellay did not say it was valid. He said we call it "licit".
The Church does not allow anything that is legal to also be evil, in Her rites.

I suppose that is true, or at least the goal. It is a matter of opinion. And that is all this happens to be.

I believe they have such things as public confession these days. For those too timid to make it into the box and accuse oneself. I am pretty certain that is legal or licit. But I would say it is also a path to evil. Do the bare minimum and your sins are lifted. But I guess the modernists would call it a door way to admitting one's sins and for allowing the soul to eventually get back to the Confessional.

On the flip side, I haven't seen an increase in the times Confession is available at the local NO outlets.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)