Posted on 10/19/2006 5:57:34 PM PDT by monkapotamus
*Glad you like them. Here is another one...
Cooperatio materialis immediata illicita est
"And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children." (Mt 27:24, 25) The Gospel teaches us, therefore, that the Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide.
Nostra Aetate SIGNED BY LEFEVBRE HIS OWN SELF...
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
* and yet we have the SSPX, started by lefevbre, teach in opposiiton to the Living Magisterium in the very Document the progenitor of the sspx schism signed.
If that alone is not evidence the sspx schism breeds heresies, hatreds, antisemitism, and insanity, then no evidence will
While, as I think I and sitetest and bornacatholic have never denied, the pope (this one or any successor) may revise, reverse, lift or modify the punishments justly visited upon Lefebvre (query: How does one unexcommunicate those who die apparently unrepentant of their excommunicating offenses? One may have a grace of final repentance and so we cannot KNOW that anyone, even Judas, is in hell, although we are assured that many, unidentified to us, are in hell) and his co-conspirators in ecclesiastical grand theft, for any reason or none, the pope is the Supreme Legislator of Canon Law. The Americanism in these controversies would seem to be practiced by the schismatics who somehow feel that they may interpret (not unlike SCOTUS) Canon Law (as an Anglo-American style "Rule of Law") to bind the pope (indeed the very pope who promulgated the entire new code). Actually, possession of the keys means that what the pope binds on earth is bound in heaven and what the pope looses on earth is loosed in heaven. If he said (and he did) that they are excommunicated schismatics, they thereby became (objectively, subjectively or whatever), ummmm, excommunicated schismatics. The SSPX, its founder and its adherents appear to believe otherwise which is why they have found themselves justly anathematized until a pope says otherwise.
BTW, Marcel was not disobedient to the "request" of John Paul the Great but abusively disobedient of the ORDER of John Paul the Great (to which Marcel had apparently agreed in writing). Likewise, the consecrated fellow excommunicant priests intended by Marcel for consecration and consecrated by him, having received Marcel's little billet doux claiming the pope to be antichrist, should have suspected that being consecrated by Marcel was not a prudent spiritual move.
It would seem in order when considering Campos, The Institute of the Good Shepherd and FSSP (for that matter) the parable of the workers and the vineyard. Also, it goes without saying that each and every priest has taken a vow of obedience that seems necessarily to require submission to the doctrinal authority of the papacy.
I personally have no knowledge of anti-Semitic remarks by Fellay. I understand that SSPX's Williamson has denied the Holocaust and said a lot of other silly things. I don't admire him but I don't suggest that his ignorance of history constitutes heresy. It is his willing receipt of the proceeds of grand theft ecclesiastical that has put him and his fellow Marcellian illicit bishops in boiling water. In and of themselves, these curious views denying the Holocaust or being anti-Semitic (if indeed that is the case) are not the ecclesiastical problems. Many darned fools have been bishops remaining in communion with Rome and have submitted in all things to dogma nonetheless. Obedience to the pope is NOT optional, however, particularly in such matters as deciding who will be consecrated a bishop.
Also, the mere opinions of Canon Lawyers have no authority to trump the judgments of popes.
I also wish to observe that the direction in which the Wanderer is drifting is a severe disappointment. First, when I rashly considered becoming Eastern Orthodox in my own anger over the abuses often introduced into Novus Ordo Masses and my general lack of admiration for Paul VI, a good friend told me to subscribe to the Wanderer for one year and then decide. I did as he asked and, because of the Wanderer, I remained Catholic.
Nonetheless, no other respectable publication would be caught dead publishing Sobran. Buchanan opines not on theology but on his moonbat isolationist and border obsessive views. I voted for him at least twice and my shame over that knows few bounds. At least he is still prolife. Now, Tom Roeser is heaping praise upon the utterly discredited pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist paleo-ostriches. If I wanted to be instructed by paleowussies, I would subcribe to Buchanan's magazine or to Mother Jones or the Nation. Now, it begins to look like there was no cause for the Matt family to divide if the Wanderer is going to mimic the "Remnant" in support of the schismatics without any papal document as a reason. Also the late Brent Bozell's Triumph magazine became an embarrassment and failed when it went anti-American over war.
*The Angelus is his mouthpiece and it publicly published the "doctrine"the jews are cursed.P>
And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
can have a Salvific Interpretation if one is not antisemitic.
Who DOESN'T want the Salvific Blood of Jesus upon the Jews or the pagans or anyone else?
By the Blood of Jesus coming upon Longinus, he was converted and saved.
AMEN. MAY THE BLOOD OF JESUS BE UPON THE JEWS AND THEIR CHILDREN
Gag. Gag. Puke. Puke. Puke. This is like when John Kerry would say President Bush ought to do what he was about to do and then when he did it say it was good he took his advice.
You coulk also arrange for a cup o'tea with Tom Fleming and discuss Montenegro :)
Thanks for your opinion. Nice blending of personal preferences, history and politics with your own particular worldview.
You and others are stuck in 1988. At no time have I ever defended deliberately disobeying the Pope and ordaining bishops against his express will.
However, since Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Cardinal Medina Estevez, and more recently, Archbishop Ranjith all seem to disagree with your assessment of things traditional and SSPX, I defer to understanding their recent corrections that "the SSPX is NOT a formal schism."
Of course, there interviews are not official Church discipline nor policy, and for that, I respectfully await some official action of Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning.
The fact that many of the Americanist variety do not like Sobran (who is phenomenal in my opinion!) and Buchanan and yet praise the likes of Richard John Neuhaus and others, reveals more than many of us care to know.
Throwing the "anti-Semitic" label out there and seeing how many people it slanders is not very effective for those who would prefer people deal with issues.
Of course, the SSPX story I penned has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that many of you here enjoy ranting about. You are all so much older and wiser than I am (obviously, our world views are different), but suffice to say that the generation before mine did not "hand on the Faith of our Fathers" in tact to us, as you received it from your Fathers; neither did you do much to stop the disintegration of the Church militant and the transformation of it into the "pilgrim Church"--or perhaps the Gypsy Church or the Church of the warm fuzzy pet doggie.
"Uncle" Fellay. Fellay-tio.
* I posted it because that is the 'doctrine" of Fellay and it was published in his mouthpiece, the Angelus. I posted the link to the issue of the Angelus teaching the "doctriune" to the sspx supporters. And you are not dealing with that as an issue. Your oblique remarks about it indicate to me you found it embarassing, heretical, and indefensible and that is all to your credit.
"However, in what does that curse consist. Surely it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jewish race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin. The curse is of a different nature, and corresponds to the greatness of the vocation of the Jewish people as a preparation for the Messias, to the superiority of their election, which makes them first in the order of grace."
From the post you gave. Nothing can be interpreted here as being "heretical." In fact, the Credo of the Council of Trent says we must interpret Sacred Scripture ONLY in full accord with the Fathers of the Church. I suggest you read what they said about the responsibility of the Jews in Christ's crucifixion.
I am no theologian. You made no theological argument. You posted something as saying something you have mistakenly attributed falsely.
If there is something theologically wrong with it, prove it. The burden of proof is on you.
It appears to me, in my cursory reading, to be more or less in accord with Tradition, to which we are all bound. Don't make the Vatican II documents say more than they do.
IK believe that is misleading. I will post a link to a letter from Msgr Perl that more acurately characterises the matter
Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei"
N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998
Mr. F. John Loughnan
10 Glendale Drive
Chirnside Park, Vic. 3116
AUSTRALIA
Dear Mr. Loughnan:
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.
First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.
You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.
We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.
a) The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).
Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.
b) While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended "a divinis," that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism," such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that "the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith."
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
c) Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.
d) It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.
e) We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).
f) The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.
g) You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.
h) The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.
i) Our response to your questions may be made public.
With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary
Read Fellay from jan 6, 2003...
Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome's offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.
For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one's adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that "Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass", or, "Campos has completely given up Tradition". However, that being said, here is what we observe:
1. The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecumenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI's encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II's traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, "Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church's Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain documents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today".
2. The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favorable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: "We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting". Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome's gesture in favor of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation...They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.
3. Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman... "We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer", said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.
4. Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: "So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!". We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: "Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It's not the same thing". That was Rome's argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal's curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today's Rome. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition", said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chretienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing....
So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests' tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday's warnings and today's deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted. LEAVING THE SSPX BEHIND
Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.
A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.
To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants - for the moment.
One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome's offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome's offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect's plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?
To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today's Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that "There must be no innovations outside of Tradition", then "we" shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that "It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny".
*The sspx's official American Organ, the Angelus, teaches precisely that which an Ecumenical Coucnil condemns.
On the matter of the Jews being cursed, do you side with the Ecumenical Council Magisterium or do you side with the schismatic sspx?
Congratulations, you entirely missed the point of my post!
ping
Oops sorry didn't mean to ping you, wrong thread.
I listened through two years of what Tom Fleming calls "Real American History." The course was a pleasure to behold and to hear (for the most part) through the Civil War and Reconstruction and derailed ideologically into a train wreck thereafter. Such nonsense as all labor unions are communist, his preferences for picturesque little satrapies such as Montenegro to which he intends to retire (the sooner the better), unreconstructed pre-Pearl Harbor isolationism, spurring an elderly veteran who was at Normandy to be sure to give high school kids graphic descriptions of the mayhem (Fleming's attitudes on war are indistinguishable from Cindy Sheehan's Mother Treason views) and Fleming lacked the spine to discuss the Reagan administration since he apparently despises Reagan who treated the paleos, for the most part, as the not ready for prime time social embarrassments that they are and were. Instead of Reagan, he reverted to discussion of Rip van Winkle and other old literature. Fleming is no more a conservative in any cognizeable sense than Fellay, de Mallerais or Williamson are Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.