SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
#31
(01-05-2013, 11:57 AM)Richard C 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.

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.

Right poorly phrased. I meant talmudism. I have no problem with "Jews" as a race its the religion that was made up by the Rabbis after 70 ad that hates the Church.
Reply
#32
I think this statement represents that Bishop Fellay has given up any hope of reconciliation with the Catholic Church.  He is not taking care to phrase his comments in a way that will be acceptable to the Magisterium.  He almost seems like he might be doing the opposite. 

While one can make a case that his comments are true, I would expect the same truths to be expressed differently by a person striving toward reconciliation.
Reply
#33
Muslims are also the enemy of the Church. But Pope JPII the awesomest ever! asked John the Baptist to bless and protect Islam!

Reply
#34
Bishop Fellay's statement lacked all the subtlety, nuance and intelligence that I've come to expect from him.

It is an interesting irony to see pro-SSPX types inventing interpretive epicycles to keep the statement from sounding stupid. If feel for you, bros. I've been there.
Reply
#35
(01-05-2013, 04:33 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: Bishop Fellay's statement lacked all the subtlety, nuance and intelligence that I've come to expect from him.

I think that's because it was said somewhat incidentally.  That's clear (to me at least) on the audio of the talk that was recently posted.

I love Bishop Fellay's laetitia.  He's got it. 
Reply
#36
Alot of people calling themselves Catholic are enemies of the Church today.
Reply
#37
What is needed is Authority. It's needed by the SSPX and the Progressives, they both need to hear the Pope to say, "this is this, and that is that, and either you accept and are reconciled or you are anathema sit".  The tumult which has ensued since Vatican II is getting to the point of dissolution of the Faith. Like Handel's Messiah at Christmas it has become do it yourself Catholicism. Do you not see that even the SSPX is split ? They that kept the Treasure of the TLM intact while the World went mad, now has sides lining up to split. Isn't that the definition of Protestantism. He is imprecise in his words because if he were precise, he'd accuse the Holy See of not being the Church.

tim
Reply
#38
Listening to the talk helped me realize that, while it's vital to choose words carefully, especially if you're a Catholic bishop, nonetheless, a talk is not intended to be sliced and diced and parsed, and the resulting mess magnified, and the magnification photographed, and that photograph sliced and diced, and one slice, or dice of it, magnified out of all proportion.  This seems to have happened with Bishop Williamson too. 

I've heard talks by trad priests where it was obvious that every word was measured before it was said.  I think that's a gift.  I don't think it should be a requirement before they give a talk or an interview.
Reply
#39
(01-05-2013, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: 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...

I think this is his point. I agree that perhaps he could have qualified it by saying "containing" evil; but, then again, there is a big difference between the claim that something which is by nature defective contains evil and the claim that something which is by nature indefectible contains evil. The latter is somewhat of a paradox, I think. The Church, being indefectible, cannot admit of any evil in her public liturgical activity; for it is by the Church's public liturgical, legal, and doctrinal activity that she proves herself to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic and manifests her divine origin to the world. A church whose institutional activity admitted of any measure of evil in any of these marks of material visibility would prove false its claim to be of divine origin.

It is inconceivable that the spotless Bride of Christ could give her faithful a Mass containing any measure of evil, and, in this case, containing a significant measure of evil. If the Church is spotless, as Christ promised she would be, then she proves it through the institutional--that is: disciplinary, doctrinal, and liturgical--means by which she sanctifies and communicates with her members. The foundational principle for this certainty is found in Scripture itself (cf. Matthew 7:9-11) and expounded by the theologians throughout the ages. To claim on the one hand that she is spotless and on the other that she can give us any measure of that which is unholy is to claim that she is only spotless in theory but not in practical reality.
Quote: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 do not think this is an accurate analogy because it compares apples to oranges: that which is fallible and defectible to that which is infallible and indefectible. Instead of just any man, a better analogy would be specifically the person of Jesus Christ, since He is infallible; but if only one spot of evil could be found, then He wouldn't truly be the Son of God. So while one speck of evil would not suffice to call Christ wholly evil, it would suffice to say that He would not be the Son of God.
Reply
#40
The Mass of the Roman Rite, by Joseph A. Jungmann, SJ, Vol. 1, p. 25 Wrote:But remember, it is not necessary that the details of eucharistic theology appear in the rite. Even in the developed Mass-liturgy of today [1950, i.e., TLM] many pertinent points of dogma are entirely omitted.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)