Bishop Fellay: SSPX Seeks Return to the Past

[TMC]

Would you find the following to be anti-semitic?:

Perhaps your definition of anti-semitism is different than what the Church has traditionally espoused and corresponds more towards today’s politically correct definition. I have never seen anything from an official SSPX source that comes close to as “strong” as the above comments from Saints of the Church. Please refrain from slandering the SSPX.

Caveat: I do not post the above quotes to offend anyone on the forums, to cause an uproar, or to incite anti-semitic comments or behavior. My intent is only to assert that the SSPX and most traditional Catholics are not in anyway anti-semitic by comparing and/or relating them to quotes of the Saints.

I do not believe I have done anything to slander the SSPX. I deliberately avoided saying that SSPX is anti-Semitic, although I see that my comments could be taken to mean that. So to be clear, I don’t know what the SSPX officially teaches, or even if they have an “official” set of teaching documents. That said, I have seen very strong statements about the Jewish people on what I believe to be the main or official SSPX website.

To answer your question, depending on context, many of those statements could be anti-Semitic, and all can be used to justify anti-Semitism. In context, the quote from Scripture is clearly not meant as a condemnation of all Jews–particularly when you consider the many other comments Paul makes about the Jewish people.

I don’t know that it is useful to try to define anti-Semitism. To me it comes down to the point I was making in my earlier post. Anytime anyone comes to believe that his relationship with God makes him better than someone else (Jew or Gentile), that person is in error. But to advance address whether I am the victim of modern political correctness or not, I can provide a list of beliefs that I find to be erroneous, and which I think can fairly be described as anti-Semitic. Some are held by at least some so-called Traditionalists, others have been held from time to time by Christians of various denominations:

That God loves a person less because that person is Jewish.
That Jews are cursed because they bear guilt for Christ’s death.
That Jews are otherwise inherently flawed so that they are less capable of moral discernment or proper conduct than Gentiles.
That Jews are less able to be saved than other non-Christians.
That doing business with Jews is a sin.
That being friends with a Jew is a sin.
That Jews are, individually or as a race, tools of Satan.

Whether described as anti-Semitism or something else, each of the above is inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. Do you disagree?

Again, my point was meant to be a more positive one. I believe that justifiable pride in our Faith leads some to fall into an error of hubris - to believe that because I am good, others must therefore be bad. But God does not work that way. In reading about these issues, I learned that I am in danger of falling into the same error in many ways. I realized, for example, that by supposing that those people that hold “traditionalist” views that I do not agree with must be bad people I hoist myself by my own petard. I have no more right to condemn them than they do to condemn others. I am trying to learn to approach all with the same charity I believe is due to me. That is one of the reasons I have adopted the signature line that I use.

 

[JReducation]

I do not believe I have done anything to slander the SSPX. I deliberately avoided saying that SSPX is anti-Semitic, although I see that my comments could be taken to mean that. So to be clear, I don’t know what the SSPX officially teaches, or even if they have an “official” set of teaching documents. That said, I have seen very strong statements about the Jewish people on what I believe to be the main or official SSPX website.

To answer your question, depending on context, many of those statements could be anti-Semitic, and all can be used to justify anti-Semitism. In context, the quote from Scripture is clearly not meant as a condemnation of all Jews–particularly when you consider the many other comments Paul makes about the Jewish people.

I don’t know that it is useful to try to define anti-Semitism. To me it comes down to the point I was making in my earlier post. Anytime anyone comes to believe that his relationship with God makes him better than someone else (Jew or Gentile), that person is in error. But to advance address whether I am the victim of modern political correctness or not, I can provide a list of beliefs that I find to be erroneous, and which I think can fairly be described as anti-Semitic. Some are held by at least some so-called Traditionalists, others have been held from time to time by Christians of various denominations:

That God loves a person less because that person is Jewish.
That Jews are cursed because they bear guilt for Christ’s death.
That Jews are otherwise inherently flawed so that they are less capable of moral discernment or proper conduct than Gentiles.
That Jews are less able to be saved than other non-Christians.
That doing business with Jews is a sin.
That being friends with a Jew is a sin.
That Jews are, individually or as a race, tools of Satan.

Whether described as anti-Semitism or something else, each of the above is inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. Do you disagree?

Again, my point was meant to be a more positive one. I believe that justifiable pride in our Faith leads some to fall into an error of hubris - to believe that because I am good, others must therefore be bad. But God does not work that way. In reading about these issues, I learned that I am in danger of falling into the same error in many ways. I realized, for example, that by supposing that those people that hold “traditionalist” views that I do not agree with must be bad people I hoist myself by my own petard. I have no more right to condemn them than they do to condemn others. I am trying to learn to approach all with the same charity I believe is due to me. That is one of the reasons I have adopted the signature line that I use.

I believe that you’re making a good point here. We must be careful. Certain statements that we make or quotes that we produce from history, if taken out of context, can trigger a knee-jerk reaction. This is probably the reason that the Council Fathers and Pope Paul VI were very firm in their statement. We cannot hold on to statements that make others look sinful and us look holier. If truth be told, we are all sinners and we are all redeemed. This is the reality that we must always communicate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[santodomingo]

Hello Ultima Ratio,
I have to thank you for your extraordinary posts on this thread. Rarely have I come across someone who argues his point so eloquently and with such learning. I don´t understand many things that are going on in our Church, but I am very reluctant to take the position of the FSSPX. I have to pray about this, and do lots of reading!

Thank you to everyone who has taken part in this debate. God bless you and God bless the FSSPX!!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Hello Ultima Ratio,
I have to thank you for your extraordinary posts on this thread. Rarely have I come across someone who argues his point so eloquently and with such learning.

Thank you.

I don´t understand many things that are going on in our Church, but I am very reluctant to take the position of the FSSPX. I have to pray about this, and do lots of reading!

I understand how difficult these things are to sort out. Hopefully the talks with Rome and the SSPX will clear everything up.

 

[JReducation]

Hello Ultima Ratio,
I have to thank you for your extraordinary posts on this thread. Rarely have I come across someone who argues his point so eloquently and with such learning. I don´t understand many things that are going on in our Church, but I am very reluctant to take the position of the FSSPX. I have to pray about this, and do lots of reading!

Thank you to everyone who has taken part in this debate. God bless you and God bless the FSSPX!!

I believe that one can share the pastoral concerns of the SSPX and even have the same questions. However, to take the same position can be dangerous. By taking the same position, I mean that one should not paint oneself into a corner as what has happened with them. When this happens, it creates a situation of conflict. That’s not what we want for us or for the Church.

That being said, the Church is not going to come down hard on anyone for asking questions. Where the Church comes down hard is when one challenges authority or calls it into question. This is a rather interesting point. Despite the fact that canon law says that we have the right to question and correct each other, including our hierarchy, the theology of the sacraments also teaches us that there is a hierarchy of governance and authority that even canon law cannot deny. In other words, canon law can only applied when that hierarchy of authority allows it.

There is a wonderful sister who is a canon lawyer and she was speaking about his issue on EWTN not long ago. She was explaining that canon law always assumes that the hierarchy is right. The role of the law is to protect the Church, not the individual. The greater good is always paramount in canon law. When an individual uses canon law to support his position, it must be for the common good. She explained that what canon lawyers do in a conflict situation such as this one is to ask, “Which of the two parties has greater responsibility for the common good and which of the two parties has greater authority in the Church?” Once that question is answered, the benefit of the doubt is always given to the identified party. This is done to protect the Church.

What one has to be careful here is to make sure that one makes a difference between one’s beliefs and one’s authority in the Church. I can have very strong beliefs. But I don’t have the authority or duty of protecting and leading the community. Therefore, I have to accept that my beliefs may have to remain my own and cannot be generalized to everyone. As long as I can make that distinction between what is good for me and what is good for the Church, as well as my role in the Church and the hierarchy’s role in the Church, one should have no problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SemperFidelis]

They never intended to make law for the Church or to govern the Church.

However, as Doctors and Fathers of the Church, their teachings on this cannot just be disregarded because we believe they don’t have a modern application or correspond with a modern understanding.

Therefore. we can restate these quotes for historical purposes. We can say, “This is the way they understood this.” But we cannot use these particular statements as facts, because the Church has asked us not to make such statements. Were these saints alive today, they would obey that directive. As those who are aspiring to sanctity, we must adhere to the directives given to us by Church authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

My point was to show TMC that one cannot accuse the SSPX of being anti-semitic unless one is willing to call Saints and Doctors of the Church anti-semetic. I know of no statement made by anyone of the SSPX that could legitimely be deemed anti-semitic.

 

[Abenadar]

That God loves a person less because that person is Jewish.
That Jews are cursed because they bear guilt for Christ’s death.
That Jews are otherwise inherently flawed so that they are less capable of moral discernment or proper conduct than Gentiles.
That Jews are less able to be saved than other non-Christians.
That doing business with Jews is a sin.
That being friends with a Jew is a sin.
That Jews are, individually or as a race, tools of Satan.

Whether described as anti-Semitism or something else, each of the above is inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. Do you disagree?

I don’t disagree, and I don’t know anybody who would. I have yet to meet any SSPX priest or lay person who acts in any way according to your general description above, or any that would be characterized as “anti-semitic”. As a matter of fact, the same hyper-sensitivity toward “the Jews” and any discussion about them that I see from secular souces, non-Catholic religious sources, and “Novus Ordo” Catholics, I also see mirrored in the behavior of traditional Catholics, including people who belong to, or attend, SSPX churches.

I think the real difference is a matter of true concern versus indifference. It’s much easier to be indifferent toward non-Catholics (everybody is saved these days, it’s between them and God), which is the norm these days, versus a true concern for souls. Unfortunately, when that “true concern” (which is only what I’ve ever seen from SSPX people I know) is pointed at “the Jews”, people start misunderstanding it to be anti-semitism. If a trad shows concern for the souls of protestants, it’s a good thing. If it happens toward a Jew, it’s instant anti-semitism.

 

[JReducation]

However, as Doctors and Fathers of the Church, their teachings on this cannot just be disregarded because we believe they don’t have a modern application or correspond with a modern understanding.

Actually, we can and we do. The Doctors and Fathers of the Church are subject to the scrutiny of the Church authorities. We use what the Church uses from them. We ignore what the Church ignores. Don’t think that the Church uses everything that the Doctors and the Fathers wrote. That is not the case. The Church sorts through their writings to ensure that they were not heretical. But she does not include all of their writings in her deposit of faith. A lot of what they wrote the Church leaves it up to the individual to take as good spiritual counsel or not. She incorporates into her teaching what she needs from them. The rest is good spiritual and inspirational writing, but not binding.

My point was to show TMC that one cannot accuse the SSPX of being anti-semitic unless one is willing to call Saints and Doctors of the Church anti-semetic. I know of no statement made by anyone of the SSPX that could legitimely be deemed anti-semitic.

Your point about the SSPX may be very right. As to the saints, there were many who were anti-semitic. This was part of the culture of the time. They are not held culpable for it, just as they are not held culpable for thinking that black people were inferior or that slavery was moral. The saints lived within their time and culture. They achieve sanctity using the means that they had available to them, just as we have to achieve holiness using the means that we have available to us. Sanctity is not determined by what a saint writes, but by the degree to which the saint achieves the perfection of charity. Even in the achievement of the perfection of charity, there are degrees. There are many saints. Not all saints achieved the same degree of perfect charity. Perfect charity is measured in degrees by the Church. This is part of the canonization process. There are criteria for perfect charity. Some saints meet the basic criteria and some excel far beyond it.

The perfection of charity of a martyr exceeds that of a virgin, for example.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I don’t disagree, and I don’t know anybody who would. I have yet to meet any SSPX priest or lay person who acts in any way according to your general description above, or any that would be characterized as “anti-semitic”. As a matter of fact, the same hyper-sensitivity toward “the Jews” and any discussion about them that I see from secular souces, non-Catholic religious sources, and “Novus Ordo” Catholics, I also see mirrored in the behavior of traditional Catholics, including people who belong to, or attend, SSPX churches.

I think the real difference is a matter of true concern versus indifference. It’s much easier to be indifferent toward non-Catholics (everybody is saved these days, it’s between them and God), which is the norm these days, versus a true concern for souls. Unfortunately, when that “true concern” (which is only what I’ve ever seen from SSPX people I know) is pointed at “the Jews”, people start misunderstanding it to be anti-semitism. If a trad shows concern for the souls of protestants, it’s a good thing. If it happens toward a Jew, it’s instant anti-semitism.

I believe that the problem is not with the concern, but with the language. The Church is concerned about the salvation of souls. Everyone’s soul. To say that those of us who are not SSPX are not concerned about the salvation of the Jews or Muslims or Pigmies is unfair. We’re not indifferent. But our language is different.

In the case of the Jews, the Church has taught us that they will be saved, but we have no idea how Christ will do so. We believe it as a matter of faith. Because we believe that God is faithful to his promises, regardless of how unfaithful we are. He is the same merciful God toward all. Thank God.

But what the Church is saying is that we do not have to push the Jewish people to the point of frightening them or intimidating them or making them feel as if they are damned. But that we must always be present to them as Christians and let them see Christ through us. As they see Christ through us, Christ will also call out to them, because they are his people. The Church means this in a very literal way. Jesus was a Jew. This is his “nation”. He will find a way to save them. That way will come through the Church. How will Jesus do this? We know that it will be through the Church. That’s why the modern popes have gone out of their way to be very present among the Jews. Unless the Church is very present among them, how can Jesus save them through the Church. What exactly will Jesus do? That part we do not know. The Church has never claimed to know this. But she must make her presence among them, so that grace can flow from her to them. Salvation does come through the Church for Jew and Christian. The mechanics of it are a mystery.

As to the antisemitism, there is a danger that when you speak to a people who have faith in God and who have suffered for love of God and you tell them that they are wrong, you are going to hurt them very badly. The Church realizes that this has been tried and has not worked. So why do it again?

A faithful Jew does love God and wants to do what God wants. I know, because I’m a convert from Judaism. When you tell a faithful Jew that he is being unfaithful, you offend him. It would be the same the other way around. Offending is not a way to convert anyone. The praxis has to change, not the mission. The mission remains the same, to evagelize. How we evangelize has to change. In recent years, a gentle and fraternal Catholic presence has done much more to get the Jews attention than anything that was ever done in the past.

I can tell you that what brought many of us to Catholicism was not being challenged. That turned us off and made Catholics very scary people. What brought us to Catholicism were the gentle souls who were rational, holy, prayerful, faithful to their Catholic religion, and charitable to all. People like Edith Stein were moved by the likes of Teresa of Avila. Her deep mysticism could not be denied. No matter how much Edith tried to deny it, it just made sense.

For me, it was St. Francis of Assisi. His love for Jesus was so inspiring that it led me to ask myself why such a good man as Francis would be a Christian and not a Jew. That moved me to ask more questions about Jesus.

There is another Franciscan brother on EWTN, Br. Bob Goldberg, who is also a convert from Judaism. What brought him over was the Church’s understanding of the Old Testament. It was not what Christians said to him about Judaism.

Most Hebrew Catholics will tell you that what brought them over was something to do with logic. Logic is very important to devout Jew.

The cafeteria Jew (there are many) don’t care one way or the other. They are cultural Jews. But the devout Jew looks for logic and for charity. Charity is very important in Judaism.

I believe this is what made Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict very attractive to Jews. John Paul was very charitable. Benedict is very logical. Both men embody qualities that are important to the religious Jew.

Does that make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[preV2tradcath]

That does make sense, Br. JR. And thank you for the information about logic and charity. I learned something new tonight.

 

[JReducation]

That does make sense, Br. JR. And thank you for the information about logic and charity. I learned something new tonight.

Thank you. That makes me feel like I did something good today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Your point about the SSPX may be very right. As to the saints, there were many who were anti-semitic.

What’s more likely: that MANY saints were anti-semetic (which is an objectiv mortal sin against charity), or that your definition of anti-semitism is incorrect? Since most people today have a wrong understanding of anti-semetism, I was guess the latter.

Here’s a quote from Fr. Fahee on this subject:

"On account of the confusion of mind prevalent amongst Catholics concerning the question of Anti-Semitism, a few words must be said about it.

In the excellent review of my book The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism which appeared in the Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica (Rome, March 1947), the reviewer laid special stress on the distinction which I have been making in all books. He wrote as follows:

“The author wants a clear distinction to be made between hatred of the Jewish nation, which is Anti-Semitism, and opposition to the Jewish and Masonic naturalism. This opposition on the part of Catholics must be mainly positive by acknowledging, not only individually, but socially, the rights of the supernatural Kingship of Christ and His Church, and by striving politically to get these rights acknowledged by States and public life. For this indispensable undertaking… the active and effective union of Catholics… is absolutely necessary.”

Space does not allow of lengthy quotations from papal documents to show that, on the one hand, the sovereign pontiffs insist that Catholics must stand unflinchingly for the integral rights of Christ the King as contained in the papal encyclicals, while, on the other hand, keeping their minds and hearts free from hatred of Our Lord’s own nation according to the flesh. On the other hand, they must battle for the rights of Christ the King and the supernatural organization of society as laid down in the encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally proclaiming that the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messias, by His own nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation to Him, are a fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world. On the other hand, as members of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholic should neither hate the members of that nation in which, through our Blessed Mother, the Lily of Israel, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature, nor deny them their legitimate rights as persons. The supernatural elevation of mind and heart and the unshrinking fortitude that are required from members of Christ in our day can be maintained only with the aid of Him who wept over Jerusalem’s rejection of order. It will inevitably mean suffering for Christ’s faithful members as the power of the anti-supernatural forces in the world increases. Even in the midst of their suffering, however, Christ’s members must bear in mind that there will be glorious triumph for Christ the King.

Two reasons can be assigned for the fact that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who should be on the side of Christ the King.

Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term and never even allude to the documents which insist on the rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the Jewish naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord.

Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the naturalistic or anti-supernatural Press and do not distinguish between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense as explained above, and “Anti-Semitism,” as the Jews understand it. For the Jews, “Anti-Semitism” is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messanic domination of their nation over all the others. Quite logically, the leaders of the Jewish nation hold that to stand for the Rights of Christ the King is to be “Anti-Semitic.” The term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, is being extended to include any form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic aims and any exposure of the methods they adopt to achieve these aims.

At the beatification of Joan of Arc (December 13, 1908), the saintly Pope Pius X said:

“In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of those disposed toward evil is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigor of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the Prophet Zachary did in spirit (Zach. 13:6a): ‘What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands?’ The answer would not be doubtful: ‘… With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me’ (Zach. 13:6b). I was wounded by my friends, who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholic of all countries.”

 

[pnewton]

Your point about the SSPX may be very right. As to the saints, there were many who were anti-semitic. This was part of the culture of the time. They are not held culpable for it, just as they are not held culpable for thinking that black people were inferior or that slavery was moral. The saints lived within their time and culture. They achieve sanctity using the means that they had available to them, just as we have to achieve holiness using the means that we have available to us. Sanctity is not determined by what a saint writes, but by the degree to which the saint achieves the perfection of charity. Even in the achievement of the perfection of charity, there are degrees. There are many saints. Not all saints achieved the same degree of perfect charity. Perfect charity is measured in degrees by the Church. This is part of the canonization process. There are criteria for perfect charity. Some saints meet the basic criteria and some excel far beyond it.

I thank you for pointing this out. It is easy to develop the idea that every Saint was impeccable, which is never what the Church has taught. Some were even known for their temper. Surely within the culture of the time antisemetism would have been no barrier.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I thank you for pointing this out. It is easy to develop the idea that every Saint was impeccable, which is never what the Church has taught. Some were even known for their temper. Surely within the culture of the time antisemetism would have been no barrier.

But we have to ask ourselves: Were the saints truly antiisemitic, or have we become so overly sensitive that we consider things to be anti-semitic that, in reality, are not?

Here’s how we can test ourselves to find out if our sensibilities are correct, or of they have been distorted as a result of the times that we live. In other words, were the saints anti-semitic as a result of the times that they lived? Or have we become twisted in our understanding of the as a result of the times that we live. There is a way for us to determine this. We can do so by comparing our way of thinking to a source that is beyond impeachment - the infallible and inerrant word of God, that has God Himself as the primary authority.

Let us read this verse from the Bible and ask ourselves if we consider it to be anti-semitic. IF so, we can be 100% certain that we have an erroneous understanding of anti-semitism.

1 Thess 2: 14-16: “the Jews, ho both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end”.

Now, if we have even a little problem with these inerrant words of God, we can rest assured that we have been negatively influenced by the time in which we live, and as such have a wrong understanding of anti-semitism. In that case, we probably owe an apology to the saints we have implicitly accused of being anti-semitic.

 

[pnewton]

But we have to ask ourselves: Were the saints truly antiisemitic, or have we become so overly sensitive that we consider things to be anti-semitic that, in reality, are not?

No, I don’t Over such minor matters I prefer just to follow the Church. Unlike the SSPX I am not going to make a career of quesitoning every little thing the Church says and trying to decide for myself if I agree or not. I am the student. The Church is the teacher, not visa versa. What JR said about the Saints was surely possible. I owe no one an apology unless I said," St. XYZ was antisemetic’,’ and he was not. All I believe is that such an attitude does not prohibit one from being a Saint.

 

[pnewton]

Let us read this verse from the Bible and ask ourselves if we consider it to be anti-semitic. IF so, we can be 100% certain that we have an erroneous understanding of anti-semitism.
1 Thess 2: 14-16: “the Jews, ho both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end”.
Now, if we have even a little problem with these inerrant words of God, we can rest assured that we have been negatively influenced by the time in which we live, and as such have a wrong understanding of anti-semitism. In that case, we probably owe an apology to the saints we have implicitly accused of being anti-semitic.

Scripture should always be taken in context, lest we fall into the Protestant method of judging the Catholic Church according to our own opinions. So, look at your context. Which Jews is he referring to? The apostles? Jesus? The holy Jewish patriarchs? The Jewish Church? These are all Jews. So to whom does he refer?

The beginning of the sentence is in v. 10 in which Paul calls the Thesalonians his witnesses, meaning they testify to his character. Therefore Paul is grateful (v.13) because of their witness and their suffering (v. 14). Then he compares there suffering with the suffering that the primarily Jewish Church did at the hands of* their* countrymen. That is the common thread, not the Jewish anscestory. The countrymen of the Thessalonians, the countrymen of the Judean Church, those who persecuted Jesus, those who persecuted the prophets, and those who persecuted Paul and his company, are the ones who will always fill up the measure of their sins.

Sorry for the lenghty post. I should have just said that anyone with a question should read the whole letter, or at least the second chapter for themselves.

 

[JReducation]

When speaking about being anti-semitic it really does not one any service to go into a definition of what it means today and what it meant in, let’s say 1200. People are using the term as they understand it today. Therefore, our answers have to be within that context.

If we look at the statements made by saints over the past 2000 years and we’re asked a question using today’s nuance of the term, we have to answer it within the context of today’s nuance. It does ot hurt or take anything away from the saint.

To say that Saint X made a statement that today would be anti-semitic, but that in his time it was not, it perfectly fine and takes nothing away from the sanctity of the individual. Saints made many statements with no intention to do harm, no only about jews but about genders, races, other religions, even each other. What we have to help today’s faithful to understand is that those statements have a historical context that is different from our own and if that saint were here today, they would reword their statement so that it would communicate what they want to say without violating charity or justice.

What made men and women saints was their achievement of perfect charity. In dealing with them and today’s man, we too must be charitable. Yes, the saints said this or that about a specific group and in today’s society that would be taken with a different meaning. Therefore, that saint would not say it that way today. That’ s the charitable way to explain the situation so that it represents the saint correctly and does not deny the fact that saints were people who lived within an historical context.

I’ll give you an example that has nothing to do with Jews, but shows how saints lived and operated within their historical context. In our rule, St. Francis wrote, “The friars shall not enter the convents of nuns.” At the time that he wrote this there were few brothers. Men were either monks, canons, diocesan priests. The friars had serious questions about the obligations to St. Clare and her sisters. Francis did not go into every detail about the brothers’ obligation to Clare and her sisters. He knew the problem. The frairs did not fit into one of the existing forms of religious life or clerical states. They needed some quidance.

When one reads that, without knowing about the relationship betweent the brothers and the nuns, it would sound like Francis was forbiding the friars literally enter the convent. That was never the case. The case was that at the time the boundaries between male religious and women monastics was very clearly defined. But Francis had founded an order in which those boundaries were redefined. The Poor Clares were not just another enclosed order. They were our sisters and his daughters. There was a great deal of intimacy between the two communities. Francis’ directive is to observe the enclosure. However, the brothers were to protect and serve the nuns and if they had to, they could enter the enclosure in order to minister to them. None of this comes out in the one simple sentence, “the friars shall not enter the convents of nuns”. But history reveals the rest of the story.

We have to look at these statements in their historical context, not just as they appear on paper. The same applies to what was written about other groups of people. We have to explain it that way to people, using their language, not the language of yesteryear.

If were to ask, was Francis of Assisi a radical? By today’s standards the answer is, no. He was actually very conservative. By the standards of the 13th century, hes he was. He was almost condemned of heresy. That’s why Bishop Guido sent him to Rome to see Pope Innocent III.

Let’s keep our explanations in their proper historical context. The definitions are not going to help people understand the answer. The historical explanation will.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Commander901]

And obviously, Bishop Fellay’s vow of respect and obedience to his
Bishop, i.e., the Holy Father, only applies when Bishop Fellay
feels like it.

 

[JReducation]

And obviously, Bishop Fellay’s vow of respect and obedience to his
Bishop, i.e., the Holy Father, only applies when Bishop Fellay
feels like it.

I don’t know Bishop Fellay personally, as some on this thread seem to know him. Therefore, I can’t get into his mind and say that he obeys or disobeys at his convenience. I can only pray that practices what Franciscans call a “Loving Obedience.” For those who may not know what that is, our holy Father Francis taught us that a “loving obedience” is one where one submits to the wishes of authority, not because authority is always right or even because authority has a better idea, but because one acknowledges the need of the soul to be disciplined. Obeying, when one disagrees, is a moment of grace for the soul. The soul opens itself up to the possibilities of the Holy Spirit, knowing that God can make all things better when we surrender our desire to control and accept ourselves as the least of God’s creatures.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[justinwu1992]

Continuation…

According to St. Thomas, unbelief is the greatest of all sins:

**Is the sin of unbelief the greatest sin? **

St. Thomas: I answer that, Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above (I-II, 71, 6; I-II, 73, 3). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.

Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals.

Unbelievers are not only Atheists who do not believe in God, but rather those who do not believe all that God has revealed. By rejecting even part of what God has revealed a person falls into the category of “unbeliever”. Below the catechism lists the various categories of unbelievers.

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1170. Name the different classes of unbelievers and tell what they are.

A. The different classes of unbelievers are:

1. Atheists, who deny there is a God;
2. Deists, who admit there is a God, but deny that He revealed a religion;
3. Agnostics, who will neither admit nor deny the existence of God;
4. Infidels, who have never been baptized, and who, through want of faith,
   refuse to be baptized;
5. Heretics, who have been baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles
   of faith;
6. Schismatics, who have been baptized and believe all the articles of faith, but
   do not submit to the authority of the Pope;
7. Apostates, who have rejected the true religion, in which they formerly believed,
   to join a false religion;
8. Rationalists and Materialists, who believe only in material things.

Now, at Assisi various categories of unbelievers were invited and asked to commit an objective mortal sin against the first commandment; namely, false worship. This event, which was presided over by the Pope himself, was so scandalous that I can’t imagine anything worse. Certainly abortion, which, as bad as it is, is only a violation of the 5th commandment, pales in comparison to the mortal sins against the first commandment that took place at Assisi – with the full approval of the Pope.

So, since Traditional Catholics do not like to see violations of the first commandment being sanctioned by the Pope himself for all the world to see, they rightly condemned Assisi for the scandal that it was. Unfortunately, there were many similar Assisi events throughout the world following the first one in 1986.

If you read through the Old Testament, you will find similar things happening over and over again with the true Church at that time - Israel. Whenever this happened God would punish them severely. For example read 4 Kings 17, 3 Kings 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 in the Douay Rheims Bible (the books have a different name in other Bibles). And if you want to see an almost identical parallel to our day, read 1 Machabees 1.

Next I’ll address the Joint Declaration…

Hello, okay, I have been reading this thread for the whole morning now, and I’ve learnt so much from you guys, thanx. I didn’t intend to step in the discussion, just a little question here:

I still don’t get it, how would, for example, a Taoist (yes, I am from the “Far East”, and no, there aren’t many Taoist around nowadays, just for example) who has never heard of Catholicism, fall into the above categories of “unbelievers”?

For a Taoist, first of all he’s not an Atheist, nor is a deist who denies that God (or gods) revealed a religion, for him that religion is Taoism. He’s not an infidels who “refuse to be baptized” since he doesn’t know what Baptism is. Nor is he a heretic, schismastic, apostate nor a materialist.

Not just Taoists, just for example, also Muslims, Buddhists and many other religious, if they have never heard of, or completely heard of Catholicism, are they to be counted as “unbelievers”? So they committed the “greatest sin”?

What about those religious leaders at Assis? Were they all aware fully of the teaching of the Church? Look at the Indian chef, he didn’t seem to know all that much about Catholicism and the Revelation of God, that he would “refuse to be baptized”.

I am from Asia, and here are lots of “unbelievers”, as many people don’t really know who Jesus is, and are not baptized as a Roman Catholic. According the Vatican II, they are to be evangelized, not condemned, for if someone who doesn’t know Christ for his whole life not because of his own fault, he’s not cut off from Salvation.

I would like to know how the traditionalists regard this?

Sorry for my English.