Pope Francis' speaks out on the disruption of Kristallnacht event by Traditionalist Catholics in Argentina

[RPRPsych]

I understand what you mean. But that is not exactly what I am getting at.

What I am trying to say is that there are certain truths, which are not religious truths, that are established regarding how people are attracted to something, how people learn, evaluate etc.

I agree with you fully on this. This is the legitimate province of social psychology, cognitive psychology, and so on.

Something that is universally agreed upon and practiced is that unless something is clearly heard and visible, it just does not spread.

Not necessarily true. The pagan faiths were extremely clear and visible during the first 300 years of the Church, while early Christians often had to meet in secret; however, you or I would be hard put to find a Jupiter-worshipper these days.

This is the same policy used by Advertisements.

Maybe I’m a foolish idealist, but I’d like to believe that spreading the Gospel is worlds apart from the manipulations of advertisers, who often create false needs and perceptions to sell a product. The Gospel is not a matter of marketing.

It is also a universal fact that one cannot bring about an attraction to something different by performing actions that reinforce what that other person already believes.

In strict behavioural psychology, this is perhaps true. But what of the grace of God, particularly prevenient grace?

Now, given these universal truths, the approach chosen by the Church to evangelize seems ineffective. They are contrary to what we know from history as well as any other field of study regarding how ideas or following of a person is made heard or spread.

The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man.

(which I disagree is even the goal. I think it has been made clear that the goal is co-existence too many times to the exclusion of conversion)

I’d respectfully disagree. I submit that the Church, guided by the Spirit, is knowingly or unkowingly performing those actions which would lead to the salvation of the most souls. If the entire Church became like the SSPX (for example), the bleeding that’s happening in Latin America and Asia, where Catholics turn Evangelical or Pentecostal, would merely get worse.

With respect to God’s plan, God works through you and me. When we see that the mission of the Church is to make sure that everyone recognizes Christ as God and savior of the world, we must use our intellect and means to do just that.

I agree with the first statement. But our intellect is sometimes not equal to certain mysteries. Would any devout Jew have believed that God would call Cyrus, a pagan, his “servant”? God’s ways are not necessarily our ways.

How can we settle for something that our intellect says is inferior and is more apt for co-existence than conversion?

My contention is that the inferiority is only apparent. Other methods might have worse consequences.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I am a former Protestant myself, and I have found many former Protestants (myself excluded) excellent at evangelising. I haven’t come across a large amount of former Protestants using unethical methods which would amount to proselytism, as defined in the document below. Could you please expand on this accusation? Are the majority of lay persons associated with SSPX ex Protestants? Is this common knowledge that I just didn’t know about?

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602697.htm

Yes, I would like to know this as well.

It just seems that “what is in accord with human dignity” is reduced today to just living in silence until someone actively asks us.

But that seems even foreign to how we deal in other fields of knowledge. If we find a good product or new theory, we go and speak about it to others. We try to show how it is much better. We don’t just wait for the other person to ask us. No one even considers it contrary to human dignity to do that with these non-Catholic things.

But all of a sudden when its Catholicism and telling about it before being asked, it becomes a bit “NO NO”. The only possibility told is that we simply live a Christian life till we are asked about it. But part of being Christian in the first place is to go out and bring others to Christ. So things don’t even make much sense in that way either.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Definitely in bad taste for them to have done what they did. The repercussions on the Church and SSPX will be overwhelmingly negative.

However, I can’t help but think many in the SSPX are only going to perceive this as vindication of their view that the Church is errantly teaching non-Catholics that they do not have to be Catholic to inherit eternal life.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I agree with you fully on this. This is the legitimate province of social psychology, cognitive psychology, and so on.

Always good to have common ground

Not necessarily true. The pagan faiths were extremely clear and visible during the first 300 years of the Church, while early Christians often had to meet in secret; however, you or I would be hard put to find a Jupiter-worshipper these days.

But that would be to miss the fact that in history, these pagan things were suppressed by the Church. In fact, some feast days were put in place of such things to deliberately prevent the faithful from lapsing back in to these things.

Maybe I’m a foolish idealist, but I’d like to believe that spreading the Gospel is worlds apart from the manipulations of advertisers, who often create false needs and perceptions to sell a product. The Gospel is not a matter of marketing.

But it is still a matter of making it known. I agree that one should not fake advertise. But one must make it heard. It must be said in words and with clarity. The objections must be met and addressed actively. Instead today, there is a sense of lets just get along.

In strict behavioural psychology, this is perhaps true. But what of the grace of God, particularly prevenient grace?

Why must we assume the prevenient Grace must display itself supernaturally? Though the Graces are supernatural, God can choose to bring about things in a natural way. In fact, I think Catholics hold that God does use natural means most of the time rather than supernatural means. Otherwise the universe itself would be unintelligible.

Would it not be more reasonable for us to hope that the other person’s mind be illuminated by Grace as we proclaim Christ to them so that they can better understand our arguments. We may also hope that God’s Grace will help us meet the concerns of the other regarding our faith. But to just hope for an entirely supernatural push without our intervention seems like a lapse on our part.

The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man.

Agreed. But there is also something that qualifies as objectively being foolishness of man.

I’d respectfully disagree. I submit that the Church, guided by the Spirit, is knowingly or unkowingly performing those actions which would lead to the salvation of the most souls. If the entire Church became like the SSPX (for example), the bleeding that’s happening in Latin America and Asia, where Catholics turn Evangelical or Pentecostal, would merely get worse.

I am not sure by what you mean for the entire Church to turn SSPX. The SSPX does have some good characteristics that are disappearing from the Church. But they also have bad and error in that they refuse to submit to the Pope on legitimate matters and accept Vatican II. So I cannot comment much without more information on what you mean for the Church to become like SSPX.

I agree with the first statement. But our intellect is sometimes not equal to certain mysteries. Would any devout Jew have believed that God would call Cyrus, a pagan, his “servant”? God’s ways are not necessarily our ways.

No, the Jews probably would not have thought that unless it was apparent from the text. But, the fact of what we should believe or reject is not a mystery. The fact that Christ died and rose from the dead for an example, which is what Christianity hinges on, is not a mystery. It is, if true, a historically verifiable fact.

Given that it is true, one is reasonable in believing in what Christ claimed himself to be as well as what he taught is also a reasonable conclusion rather than a mystery.

My contention is that the inferiority is only apparent. Other methods might have worse consequences.

Well we not know that. We are called to take the best possible course of action after evaluating it using our intellect and the truths we know. Until some evidence occurs contrary to what we know, we must pursue the best method.

After all, lets say that a person claims that the most efficient way to build a bridge is so and so. But if were to insist on building it using an inferior way claiming that there might be some unseen weakness in the preferred way, is that reasonable?

 

[RPRPsych]

Always good to have common ground

I agree.

But that would be to miss the fact that in history, these pagan things were suppressed by the Church. In fact, some feast days were put in place of such things to deliberately prevent the faithful from lapsing back in to these things.

Good point. But at that time, the Empire was also Christian, and the Church had the temporal power to do such things. It doesn’t have that these days, at least in Europe and America.

But it is still a matter of making it known. I agree that one should not fake advertise. But one must make it heard. It must be said in words and with clarity. The objections must be met and addressed actively. Instead today, there is a sense of lets just get along.

I agree that the latter attitude is common, but it’s not exactly what the Church teaches. And there are many ways of proclaiming the message. Good point.

Why must we assume the prevenient Grace must display itself supernaturally? Though the Graces are supernatural, God can choose to bring about things in a natural way. In fact, I think Catholics hold that God does use natural means most of the time rather than supernatural means. Otherwise the universe itself would be unintelligible.

Agreed. I was simply saying that even if X preaches the message, it is grace that gives Y the capacity to respond to that message.

Would it not be more reasonable for us to hope that the other person’s mind be illuminated by Grace as we proclaim Christ to them so that they can better understand our arguments. We may also hope that God’s Grace will help us meet the concerns of the other regarding our faith. But to just hope for an entirely supernatural push without our intervention seems like a lapse on our part.

Not “entirely supernatural”; rather, God assists His Church in her current endeavours. She isn’t exactly sitting back and doing nothing.

Agreed. But there is also something that qualifies as objectively being foolishness of man.

True, like sticking one’s finger in a light socket. I’m just not comfortable with labeling the Church’s current approach foolish; they know more about this than either of us.

I am not sure by what you mean for the entire Church to turn SSPX. The SSPX does have some good characteristics that are disappearing from the Church. But they also have bad and error in that they refuse to submit to the Pope on legitimate matters and accept Vatican II. So I cannot comment much without more information on what you mean for the Church to become like SSPX.

I mean: reject Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate; revert the teaching on vernacular masses; drastically cut down or abolish any attempts at ecumenism or inter-religious dialogue; refuse to censure someone who promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Holocaust denial until the stench becomes noticeable; and so forth.

No, the Jews probably would not have thought that unless it was apparent from the text. But, the fact of what we should believe or reject is not a mystery. The fact that Christ died and rose from the dead for an example, which is what Christianity hinges on, is not a mystery. It is, if true, a historically verifiable fact.

True, but that’s a side issue.

Well we not know that. We are called to take the best possible course of action after evaluating it using our intellect and the truths we know. Until some evidence occurs contrary to what we know, we must pursue the best method.

I think Rome knows what it’s doing. Many of us, including a Papal commission, thought that the “best method” in the 1960s was promoting contraception. The Pope disagreed. We can’t agree with the Church when she seems “conservative” and then turn on her when she seems “liberal” (the quotes denote the very approximate usage of those two terms.)

After all, lets say that a person claims that the most efficient way to build a bridge is so and so. But if were to insist on building it using an inferior way claiming that there might be some unseen weakness in the preferred way, is that reasonable?

Unfortunately, we can’t do what we doctors do and conduct a clinical trial: you use your method in one town, I’ll use mine in another, and let’s see what results we get. But I’d submit, in the light of all I’ve said before, that the results might surprise both of us.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Yes, I would like to know this as well.

It just seems that “what is in accord with human dignity” is reduced today to just living in silence until someone actively asks us.

But that seems even foreign to how we deal in other fields of knowledge. If we find a good product or new theory, we go and speak about it to others. We try to show how it is much better. We don’t just wait for the other person to ask us. No one even considers it contrary to human dignity to do that with these non-Catholic things.

But all of a sudden when its Catholicism and telling about it before being asked, it becomes a bit “NO NO”. The only possibility told is that we simply live a Christian life till we are asked about it. But part of being Christian in the first place is to go out and bring others to Christ. So things don’t even make much sense in that way either.

Here’s an example. I find a new cleaning product I really like. I tell my friends about it, I have a party and everyone comments about how great my house looks. Some of my friends go out and buy the same product. Excellent! I have “converted” them. However, for those friends who don’t buy it. What do I do? Do I require them to buy it? Stop being friends with them? Tell them at every opportunity how dirty and smelly their house is?

When you hear a wonderful homily, do you talk to your friends about it? Do you share how God has worked in your life? Have you invited your friends to Mass or another function at your parish? If you do those things, that is like sharing about the great new product you found. If a friend just doesn’t get what you are talking about, you don’t automatically cut them off. You continue to be friends. you continue to support them in good things. When the opportunity arises again, you invite and discuss. You can’t require them to “buy” Christianity (Catholicism). You won’t ever win them over by telling them their religion is “dirty and smelly.”

 

[Jaberwocky]

I removed the top part of this reply because it contained things that I felt we were very much in agreement on

I think Rome knows what it’s doing. Many of us, including a Papal commission, thought that the “best method” in the 1960s was promoting contraception. The Pope disagreed. We can’t agree with the Church when she seems “conservative” and then turn on her when she seems “liberal” (the quotes denote the very approximate usage of those two terms.)

See, this is where I am a bit uncertain.

Rome’s decision to uphold contraception as immoral is not a choice Rome has. In other words, it is either morally true or false. So even if the studies done by Rome were in favor of allowing contraception, Rome would still be right in pronouncing it immoral and demanding assent. Because the matter pertains directly to things we cannot see. Although the physical consequence of an act of contraception may not show any harm, it may indeed cause spiritual harm. Since none of us have access to spiritual truths or transcendent truths apart from through the Church, we must assent to her.

But on the matter of what is the best way to approach evangelization, it does not fall under the same category. In fact, considering that the Church has adopted a different policy than what she has today in the past and her change to what she does today suggests that even she has no certainty as to what works.

So in that sense I just find it difficult to assent since it seems like a matter that does not rest completely with her observations alone.

Unfortunately, we can’t do what we doctors do and conduct a clinical trial: you use your method in one town, I’ll use mine in another, and let’s see what results we get. But I’d submit, in the light of all I’ve said before, that the results might surprise both of us.

Well the issue is that most see what the world is today as the result of the position adopted since Vatican II. The stance of simply living ones Christian life (which as I said to me does not make sense for evangelizing is already part of being Christian) to attract others to the faith has only lead to a decline even among the Catholics. It is in a way as Pope Francis suggests. A Church that does not reach out just becomes sick (and I would add wanes away).

Because in my experience of trying to convert others, I have discovered that it strengthens my own faith. As I struggle to answer their objections, find information for them, pray on it, discover a way to help them overcome it, I also grow closer to my own faith. But if I just remain where I am with simply helping others and being charitable (in the temporal sense), I would just become complacent on some difficult temptations.

Also in my experience, there are individuals to whom if I never spoke to actively, they would not have realized the emptiness of their own lives. The world is good at keeping a person occupied and senses saturated in emptiness by giving more and more things that only lead to emptiness. So most of the time I find that people just do not even feel the need for religion at all. Only time they remember religion is when they hit rock bottom or get critically ill etc. But even then, most forget to turn to God because there is just so many more other things to do in what they feel as the little amount of time they have left.

So in such an environment, it is very difficult to “attract” a person to the faith simply by living ones life as a true Christian. While living a Christian life in the sense we speak of here is necessary for evangelizing, it is not sufficient.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Here’s an example. I find a new cleaning product I really like. I tell my friends about it, I have a party and everyone comments about how great my house looks. Some of my friends go out and buy the same product. Excellent! I have “converted” them. However, for those friends who don’t buy it. What do I do? Do I require them to buy it? Stop being friends with them? Tell them at every opportunity how dirty and smelly their house is?

When you hear a wonderful homily, do you talk to your friends about it? Do you share how God has worked in your life? Have you invited your friends to Mass or another function at your parish? If you do those things, that is like sharing about the great new product you found. If a friend just doesn’t get what you are talking about, you don’t automatically cut them off. You continue to be friends. you continue to support them in good things. When the opportunity arises again, you invite and discuss. You can’t require them to “buy” Christianity (Catholicism). You won’t ever win them over by telling them their religion is “dirty and smelly.”

I am not sure why you thought about cutting people off. When did I say to cut people off? I am asking why there is no effort to convert. Now cutting off people, in the event that they were once Catholic and had apostatized or committing public sins with no remorse, may be beneficial in some cases as incentive to convert back. Or it may be good to cut them off because they are too much of a bad influence on our own selves. But that was not even what I was speaking of here.

I was speaking of giving them reasons to convert. I also did not mean sharing homilies or Bible passages because none of these are any good incentives in and of themselves to convert to the Catholic faith. But that does include, prudently, telling them why their religion is unreasonable to assent to as true compared to Christianity which draws its truths from Christ who entered in to history and demonstrated his authority by dying and rising from the dead.

 

[RPRPsych]

See, this is where I am a bit uncertain.

Rome’s decision to uphold contraception as immoral is not a choice Rome has. In other words, it is either morally true or false. So even if the studies done by Rome were in favor of allowing contraception, Rome would still be right in pronouncing it immoral and demanding assent. Because the matter pertains directly to things we cannot see. Although the physical consequence of an act of contraception may not show any harm, it may indeed cause spiritual harm. Since none of us have access to spiritual truths or transcendent truths apart from through the Church, we must assent to her.

But on the matter of what is the best way to approach evangelization, it does not fall under the same category. In fact, considering that the Church has adopted a different policy than what she has today in the past and her change to what she does today suggests that even she has no certainty as to what works.

I agree that the degree of certainty is not the same as with contraception, but I still believe that the Church is being guided in the right direction.

Well the issue is that most see what the world is today as the result of the position adopted since Vatican II. The stance of simply living ones Christian life (which as I said to me does not make sense for evangelizing is already part of being Christian) to attract others to the faith has only lead to a decline even among the Catholics. It is in a way as Pope Francis suggests. A Church that does not reach out just becomes sick (and I would add wanes away).

Because in my experience of trying to convert others, I have discovered that it strengthens my own faith. As I struggle to answer their objections, find information for them, pray on it, discover a way to help them overcome it, I also grow closer to my own faith. But if I just remain where I am with simply helping others and being charitable (in the temporal sense), I would just become complacent on some difficult temptations.

Also in my experience, there are individuals to whom if I never spoke to actively, they would not have realized the emptiness of their own lives. The world is good at keeping a person occupied and senses saturated in emptiness by giving more and more things that only lead to emptiness. So most of the time I find that people just do not even feel the need for religion at all. Only time they remember religion is when they hit rock bottom or get critically ill etc. But even then, most forget to turn to God because there is just so many more other things to do in what they feel as the little amount of time they have left.

So in such an environment, it is very difficult to “attract” a person to the faith simply by living ones life as a true Christian. While living a Christian life in the sense we speak of here is necessary for evangelizing, it is not sufficient.

Many gifts, but one Spirit. Kudos to you.

This approach seems to have worked for you since you are probably gifted. But it cannot be an institutional response of the Church across a multitude of social realities. There are many roads home. I think the Church’s approach isn’t so much “live and let live” as “keep various options open”.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I agree that the degree of certainty is not the same as with contraception, but I still believe that the Church is being guided in the right direction.

Understandable. Perhaps I might surrender in such a way as well though I struggle with it at the moment Even now I feel tempted to it because it is certainly one of that brings some peace of mind!

This approach seems to have worked for you since you are probably gifted. But it cannot be an institutional response of the Church across a multitude of social realities. There are many roads home. I think the Church’s approach isn’t so much “live and let live” as “keep various options open”.

True. It is just that sometimes the option apart from “living and let live” seems to get emphasized or mentioned very little in recent times. There is no doubt it happens considering the number of growing Catholic apologists reaching out to different faiths. But there is such a lack of explicit mention of a need for it that sometimes one can forget that the Church still considers and wants there to be such an approach.

Nevertheless, this was a good discussion and fruitful sharing of ideas my friend!

 

[RPRPsych]

Understandable. Perhaps I might surrender in such a way as well though I struggle with it at the moment Even now I feel tempted to it because it is certainly one of that brings some peace of mind!

Well, we all have our struggles. Good luck with your journey! (And I’m just a layman who likes to debate; I make no claim to having all the answers.)

True. It is just that sometimes the option apart from “living and let live” seems to get emphasized or mentioned very little in recent times.

That may be the fault of the rank and file, or social pressures, but it’s not necessarily the Church’s fault.

[QUOTES]
There is no doubt it happens considering the number of growing Catholic apologists reaching out to different faiths. But there is such a lack of explicit mention of a need for it that sometimes one can forget that the Church still considers and wants there to be such an approach.

Agreed, as long as this isn’t done aggressively or coercively.

Nevertheless, this was a good discussion and fruitful sharing of ideas my friend!

Absolutely. This was a pleasure and an honour.

 

[Cojuanco]

Brother, I did not mean to come off as showing distaste of any kind against Jews or Muslims. I was just using shorthand because I typed this on a tablet.

 

[Cojuanco]

If anyone else did the opposite like bashing on liberal nuns or disagree with a certain bishop we would be suspended or banned. As I said this site is literally what I’ve seen is the Catholic Church. So much for living the way you preach.

Are we looking at the same site? There is little love lost between most people here and the LCWR leadership.

 

[TimothyH]

All true, yet the early Church separated itself completely from Judaism at a very early stage in its development, even though it did start out as or was considered to be a Jewish sect. In fact, the bulk of the persecutions suffered by the early Church came after it had separated itself from Judaism, as the Jews were not persecuted by the Romans for their faith.

These are my thoughts. I am not an expert. I read the same books as everyone else…

Romans had a list of approved religions. Judaism was on the list of approved religions and enjoyed protection under that law. Christianity was initially viewed as a sect of Judaism by Rome but later as a religion in its own right. That was part of the argument back then, whether Christians were a sect of the Jews or their own religion outright. If a sect then its existence was permitted. If a religion in its own right then it was against the law.

With the destruction of the temple in 70 AD came a necessary separation of Christianity and Judaism to a certain extent. Judaism then started to take on the appearance of what we know today to be Rabbinic Judaism - a focus on teaching the word of God through the Torah, prophets, Mishnah, Talmud, etc.

Several other factors contributed to the separation of Christians including the Fiscus Judaicus or Tax on the Jews after the destruction of the Temple. The same half shekel tax which went to the Jerusalem Temple was levied on the Jews for the upkeep of the temple to the god Jupiter. Jewish Christians distanced themselves from Judaism to avoid paying this tax and many stopped getting circumcised so that they would not be identified as Jewish. Romans recognized Christianity as its own religion and exempted Christians from the tax in 98 AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscus_Judaicus

The subject of the split between Jews and Christians is very interesting and under some debate. It is not clear that they “seperated themselves from Judaism at a very early stage”. I guess it depends on what we mean by “very early stage” and we risk arguing about something which we both actually agree about. Clearly there was little separation up to 70 AD as Acts of the Apostles records. Separation took some time. Observance of the Sabbath among Christians was formally done away with in 110 AD. The observance of the Passover took place in some locations well into the 300’s even as Tertillian wrote “Answer to the Jews” in about 200AD. The separation of Judaism and Christianity had as much to do with the development of Rabbinic Judaism into what we know today and codification of the Talmud which took place in the late sixth century as it did anything else. So what do we mean by “very early stage?” It might turn out to be semantics more than anything else.

From my reading there is really no clear cut moment in time which we can point to as a definitive separation of Judaism and Christianity. Many events are major in that split and the Temple destruction is certainly the most dramatic. Yet we still pray the Psalms. The Chalice we raise is based on the cup at Passover. Even the major feast days in the liturgical calendar are based on the Jewish festival cycles. I don’t think it can be said that we are even now completely divorced from Judaism. Far from it.

To tie it back into this thread, I don’t think those who disrupted the prayer service understand how Jewish our faith is. If they did then they would stand in awe of the Jews and their religion and faith. They would treat every Jew they met with reverence. When I meet a devout Jew I think of Abraham being called out of Ur of the Chaldeans, and of Moses who ate and drank in God’s presence and received the Law, and of David who went in and sat before God and prayed, and it gives me goosebumps. That’s just me. It is part of my spirituality.

-Tim-

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I am not sure why you thought about cutting people off. When did I say to cut people off? I am asking why there is no effort to convert. Now cutting off people, in the event that they were once Catholic and had apostatized or committing public sins with no remorse, may be beneficial in some cases as incentive to convert back. Or it may be good to cut them off because they are too much of a bad influence on our own selves. But that was not even what I was speaking of here.

I was speaking of giving them reasons to convert. I also did not mean sharing homilies or Bible passages because none of these are any good incentives in and of themselves to convert to the Catholic faith. But that does include, prudently, telling them why their religion is unreasonable to assent to as true compared to Christianity which draws its truths from Christ who entered in to history and demonstrated his authority by dying and rising from the dead.

Well, the folks disrupting the prayer service in the Cathedral were certainly bent on cutting people off. I do not think that is where you were going though. I think the key word is prudent, which they were not demonstrating. And while I agree that we should tell people, prudently, about what Christ has done for humanity, I don’tagree that starting he conversation by saying that their curent understanding is unreasonable is the best method. I understood Br J, and others, as saying that we should present the good news of Christ’s saving actions through our words and our deeds and let them come to the inderstanding on theor own that their current religion is unreasonable, and then come for more instruction.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Well, the folks disrupting the prayer service in the Cathedral were certainly bent on cutting people off. I do not think that is where you were going though. I think the key word is prudent, which they were not demonstrating. And while I agree that we should tell people, prudently, about what Christ has done for humanity, I don’tagree that starting he conversation by saying that their curent understanding is unreasonable is the best method. I understood Br J, and others, as saying that we should present the good news of Christ’s saving actions through our words and our deeds and let them come to the inderstanding on theor own that their current religion is unreasonable, and then come for more instruction.

I am not sure the SSPX were debating which religion is true or trying to convert anyone at the event. I think, at least from what I have read, their goal was to stop/impede/discourage the event.

From what I also understand, their understanding is that the event itself is imprudent because it leads one to just want to get along rather than even reach out to convert others. Which to me, is to some degree correct.

You have to admit, if I were to question any of the average Catholics in attendance, they will reveal that they don’t think we need to put an effort to convert the Jews to be Catholics. Most might say it is better to just get together and attempt to convert the secular world to just a belief in God or something supernatural or some common denominator between the Catholic and Jewish faith (which essentially would be Judaism?).

So in the eyes of the SSPX, they would see themselves as intervening against what they consider to be an already imprudent event. As I said in another thread, the problem happens in the fact that such a judgement that it is imprudent is consistent with how the Church viewed these events prior to Vatican II. While the prudential reasons for doing so by the Church (which she stated and made clear back in the day) back in the day for her stance seems to be valid even today (and perhaps more so given that most Catholics are not well catechized), the Church no longer seems to have that stigma or caution with such events. That can confuse a person.

Now I think the only reason why it is hard for Catholics who joined the Church after Vatican II to see this is because there is no way to compare what this feels like. In the post-Vatican II, there is no sense yet of “this is how we must do it”. If anything, there is a sense of flux, still after 50 years.

But that is different for those who might have lived before Vatican II. They would have been taught, they would have fought against dissenters who planned such events. They would have been commended for being loyal to the Holy See. They might even have been Apologists who convinced their own families and relatives of why the Holy See is right to make these prudent decisions. But in their own life time, the rug is pulled from under them. What they fought against with such zeal has become normative while the prudential considerations still seem valid.

I am not sure you understand how much of a shock that can be. In fact, I am not sure whether most people today understand how much of a shock it causes. For many it is may seem like nostalgia or pride. But for the one who is confronted with this dilemma, it is a shock. And as any shocked man does, they react in desperate ways. I see the entire SSPX in that light and to be quiet honest, even though I am not SSPX, I have only a great sense of compassion when I see them act out in such desperate ways. Inside of me, I also wonder what it may feel like to me if that were to happen to me.

(Just a question, how many of you are aware that it was a demand of the Church that her faithful will refrain from contracting a marriage with a non-Catholic? The reason given back then was not only that the non-Catholic were a heretic. The Church explained how it was difficult or almost impossible to raise ones children Catholic under such setting and the possible allurement to leave ones own faith. The Church gave many other reasons like that. But today, it is wide spread that you would think there must be some shortage of Catholic spouses.

All evidence suggests, it is not really fruitful either. Sure, there are few cases where the other was lead to convert. But such a success rate or anecdotal evidence hardly justifies the new as good. So when such a break takes place, those who stood for the Church at one time can only feel confused. I am just confused even by just reading about the facts so imagine these folks who lived through it.)

All I am saying is, spare a thought. Don’t just dismiss them as crazy.

 

[moon1234]

I’m belief that there is a right way and a wrong way to disagree. When you use the wrong way, you void your disagreement, because you’ve raised the bar. People need to stop and think. In no public setting are protesters allowed to be disruptive without consequences. Try this behavior in the senate or parliament.

No other faith community puts up with this. When I was growing up as Jewish kid, there were the Zionists. They could be very vocal and ugly at times. I can’t remember a single synagogue that did not have them arrested when they chose to disrupt. It was not an issue of faith. It was an issue of rights. Those who went to temple for a specific purpose approved by the rabbi, had a right to do whatever they were there to do. No one, but the rabbi, had the right to disrupt them or harass them.

Now that the Holy Father has spoken on the matter, I assume that good Catholics will accept that this was not an act of faith and it’s not justifiable and understandable. Are “good Catholics” going to give the SSPX a higher vote of confidence than we give to the Bishop of Rome?

All that comes to mind when I read all of the comments is this:

Revelation 3:16
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

 

[Cojuanco]

It is evident that the Catholic Faith is not a sect of Judaism. However, to disavow our Jewish roots is to be ignorant. This is doubly so for those who treasure the Extraordinary Form - so much of it derives from the ceremonies of Judaism in the time of Christ and the Church Fathers. Anti-Semitism, in a way, is like a man violently assaulting his own brother, in public - how can you do that to family? It’s bad enough if you do it to a stranger, but family? You essentially do violence to your own blood; so to does the Christian Anti-Semite do violence to his own roots.

In response to the above, I will put it this way: Many pagan Romans were not converted by their preaching, but by how they saw Christians treating each other and others. “See how they love each other,” they said - love that was so great they would endure torture and death rather than give it up. That’s what the Holy Fathers since, say, Pius IX at least have tried to foster in the missions.

 

[moon1234]

What they want is to see Judaism disappear. In their little brains, this will happen if the Catholic Church goes out on a campaign to convert the Jews.

There are some problems with this line of thinking.

We (Jews) are sick and tired of being bullied. When the Christian bible or the Catechism of Trent is shoved in our faces, not out of love, but as a way to eradicate us from this planet, we lock our breaks. No one likes shotgun weddings, especially the bride and groom. Evangelization must be like a courtship, not a shotgun wedding.

They also look at us as if we were the enemy. I fail to see what we have done to them to be seen as such. In Argentina, for instance, our people make up the largest non Catholic minority in a predominantly Catholic country. Outside of the SSPX, we live in peace with our neighbors. Our kids go to the same schools, we visit each other, we work in the same places and when someone is in need we come to each other’s assistance, be he Catholic or Jew. The SSPXers may see a Jew in need and the first thing out of their mouth would be proselytism rather than, “How can I help you?”

This little stunt was pulled off by a small group of SSPX friends. I understand this. What makes this egregious in my mind is when a Catholic priest makes a public defense and justifies this behavior as did the the SSPX superior in Argentina. Bishop Fellay’s silence does not make us feel comfortable.

When the priest gives this kind of behavior his blessing and the bishop remains silent, it sends a message out to other like minded people. They have created a state of apprehension and vigilance among our people. Today it’s a group of 20 and tomorrow it can be 200. Why should anyone else of like mind restrain himself, if the authorities in the SSPX do not denounce this kind of nonsense?

Everyone seems to be going out of their way to explain the SSPX’s feelings and then cap it by saying, “I don’t agree with them, but this is how they feel.”

OK, let’s try this shoe for size. “I don’t agree with the killing of Christians in the Middle East. I don’t believe that a baby is part of a woman’s body either. But this is how Muslims feel about Christians and this is how people feel about babies in utero. Let me try to help everyone understand so that no one gets angry at these folks.”

Such analysis tends to minimize the inappropriateness of the behavior rather than correct it.

Your words would be perfect if the SSPX had run into a Jewish Temple or an Islamic Mosque. What this small group of SSPX laity did was go to a Catholic Church and attempt to defend a place consecrated to God as a place of Catholic worship from being defiled. That is what happens when we reduce our Holy Places to simple buildings for ecumenical dialog.

The proper place for ecumenical dialog is out in the street and in the public square. To kindly teach what Christ taught. Church is a consecrated place to God. It is not to be used for events that deny the very rights that Jesus established for his Church and the respect that should be shown to her.

If this “service” were held in a gymn or other public place the SSPX would NOT have been seen.

How would a muslim react if someone from another sect was in the Mosque and praying to Jesus? It is sad that ecumenism is no longer about converting souls to the one true faith and more about everyone getting along.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

WARNING

TC Forum exists as a place to discuss Catholic traditions and customs. It is not the place to try to convert the pope and the hierarchy to our point of view. Such posts are inappropriate, because they are contrary to tradition.

Taditionally, Catholics have respected and submitted to the judgement of the Pontiff and the Holy See. We want to project that tradition to the world.

If you dissent, please do not do it here. You will be banned for violating the purpose of the forum.

Please remember that our tradition has always upheld the importance of respect for clergy and religious, be they present or absent. Disagreements with clergy and religious must be expressed with proper reverence.

Carry on.