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

[simple_soul]

I know how this feels. I know what you mean.

My Father went to Israel and made a few friends including one man in particular. When the man found that he was going to the wailing wall, the man invited him into his home and gave him a yamaka which my father wore at the wall. He used to say “I’m LBJ. Little Bit Jewish” and displayed the yamaka in his home until he died. I think we are all LBJ.

After he died, my mom asked me if there was anything she could give me as a memory of my father. I asked for his US Marine Corps portrait and his yamaka. The Yamaka sits on a little table in my living room with my rosaries, Bibles and other holy books, and the picture of my family with the Bishop.

I’m going to wear that yamaka again some day at the wall in Jerusalem.

-Tim-

I’ll try to remember that and I do so hope you are able to wear the yamaka at the wailling wall some day.

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 Iad 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-

I personally believe that there is a world of indebtedness to the Jewish people for their faithfulness especially in the Old Testament figures that you mentioned. They are such good examples to us on how to live faithfully.

 

[otjm]

Using your logic, Islam is also a denomination of the Jewish religion but I wouldn’t float that balloon (even with a smiley face on it) at any Mosque or Synagogue if I were you.

It is not a matter of logic, if you have actually read the Gospels, the Acts, and St. Paul.

And as applying it to the Islam faith, I kind of doubt there is any logical connection. Christ was the perfect Jew; all the Apostles were Jews, and the vast majority of the earliest converts were Jews. One might, in fact, re-read about the first Council of the Church. Held in Jerusalem, if I remember…

And then there is the impolite minor fact that Mohammed was not Jewish…

Not even a not-so-bright college sophomore would suggest there is a logical thread there.

 

[otjm]

Sect?!! That’s even worse.

There is only one true Church - the Catholic Church - it is neither a denomination nor is it a sect.

There are many denominations. Catholicism is not one of them.

And there are many sects. She is not a sect either.

Perhaps you should read Dominus Jesus. Check for it at the Vatican website.

Please - go back and read the Council of Jerusalem. The followers of Christ were split as to whether or not one had to be circumcised to be part of the followers of Christ. Christ only rarely had anything of significance to do with the gentiles. He came as the fulfillment of Judaism; the fact that most Jews did not accept that was also spoken of in their own sacred documents.

Not a few of our liturgical practices originate before Christ, in Jewish worship. Yes, we are Catholic - which means universal - but it is not for no reason that John Paul 2 spoke of todays Jews as our elder brothers.

 

[JReducation]

Whoah! Everyone slow down.

Too many armchair theologians and biblical scholars on this thread.

Catholicism and Islam are not sects, nor are they denominations.

Both have their roots in Judaism, but in very different ways.

To put all of this in very simple language, think of three rings that overlap. Islam, Judaism and Christianity overlap, but each is unique. Since each is unique, none are sects of the other. Islam and Christianity are branches of the tree of Abraham, but not branches of Judaism.

 

[RPRPsych]

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.

Talk about quoting out of context.

This verse is addressed by Christ, through His Apostle St. John, to a Christian community in Laodicea that had grown complacent, self-satisfied and lazy - perhaps because of their material wealth.

Calling yourself a “Traditional Catholic” and then indulging in private (mis)interpretations of scripture is very, very funny.

And to apply that verse to a Franciscan friar who’s done more for Christianity in a week than most of us would do in a year is horrendous. In case you wonder why many of us don’t like the SSPX, you need to just look at your own post.

 

[Lormar]

Please - go back and read the Council of Jerusalem. The followers of Christ were split as to whether or not one had to be circumcised to be part of the followers of Christ. Christ only rarely had anything of significance to do with the gentiles. He came as the fulfillment of Judaism; the fact that most Jews did not accept that was also spoken of in their own sacred documents.

Not a few of our liturgical practices originate before Christ, in Jewish worship. Yes, we are Catholic - which means universal - but it is not for no reason that John Paul 2 spoke of todays Jews as our elder brothers.

I’ve had all I can take here.

 

[commenter]

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

 

[commenter]

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

I never dismiss the SSPX as crazy. Like them, I am concerned over the tidal wave of secularism that has hit some Catholics (AND Protestants, Jewish, and other groups) in recent decades. Catholic bishops and the Vatican have not always responded wisely to secularism, in the world at large or with secularized institutions claiming to be Catholic.

I also see church leaders, especially in the last 35 years, who have “fought the good fight” against secularism. They haven’t cleaned our own house completely, but there is no doubt house cleaning is going on. Catholic unity has been a crucial factor responding to secularism outside and inside. Groups outside the Magisterium, liberal and conservative, haven’t contributed to unity, haven’t supported the battle against secularism.

People on the “Right” say they have to remain independent to maintain purity of faith. (I heard that too from people on the “Left”.) The problem is that they are not really independent of the trends of secularism. The SSPX, like all of us, are influenced by the “Spirit of the Age”, a revolt against religious authority. They aren’t as innocent as when they were just sincere people looking to preserve the TLM. They are now making many demands, a few are doing disruptive actions, that their 1970s predecessors would have opposed, but are quite natural to liberal religious groups today. They are not too bound to the 1950s, they are too bound to 2013. The SSPX talks about changes in the Church; do they notice how they themselves have changed? They aren’t crazy, just human.

 

[RPRPsych]

They aren’t as innocent as when they were just sincere people looking to preserve the TLM. They are now making many demands, a few are doing disruptive actions, that their 1970s predecessors would have opposed, but are quite natural to liberal religious groups today. They are not too bound to the 1950s, they are too bound to 2013. The SSPX talks about changes in the Church; do they notice how they themselves have changed? They aren’t crazy, just human.

This is a very important point.

I don’t think any of us disagree with the need for better catechesis, for a reverent liturgy, and for a need to avoid falling into secular errors (or “the dictatorship of relativism”, as Pope Benedict put it).

However, the end does not justify the means. And disrupting a Holocaust service - not to mention misusing some of the Church’s most beloved prayers - is a tactic worthy of gay rights and radical feminist groups, not an order that claims to stand for Tradition.

 

[Cojuanco]

I never dismiss the SSPX as crazy. Like them, I am concerned over the tidal wave of secularism that has hit some Catholics (AND Protestants, Jewish, and other groups) in recent decades. Catholic bishops and the Vatican have not always responded wisely to secularism, in the world at large or with secularized institutions claiming to be Catholic.

I also see church leaders, especially in the last 35 years, who have “fought the good fight” against secularism. They haven’t cleaned our own house completely, but there is no doubt house cleaning is going on. Catholic unity has been a crucial factor responding to secularism outside and inside. Groups outside the Magisterium, liberal and conservative, haven’t contributed to unity, haven’t supported the battle against secularism.

People on the “Right” say they have to remain independent to maintain purity of faith. (I heard that too from people on the “Left”.) The problem is that they are not really independent of the trends of secularism. The SSPX, like all of us, are influenced by the “Spirit of the Age”, a revolt against religious authority. They aren’t as innocent as when they were just sincere people looking to preserve the TLM. They are now making many demands, a few are doing disruptive actions, that their 1970s predecessors would have opposed, but are quite natural to liberal religious groups today. They are not too bound to the 1950s, they are too bound to 2013. The SSPX talks about changes in the Church; do they notice how they themselves have changed? They aren’t crazy, just human.

It’s because a lot of the sincere people left - and now they renew the Church because they are inside. And we are better for their efforts. The Church can only be renewed and reformed from the inside. It’s a waste, really - many of these men would have done much more good inside the Church than out of it - but for their pride…

 

[JReducation]

It’s because a lot of the sincere people left - and now they renew the Church because they are inside. And we are better for their efforts. The Church can only be renewed and reformed from the inside. It’s a waste, really - many of these men would have done much more good inside the Church than out of it - but for their pride…

I don’t know if pride is the word that I would use for them. I’m sure it applies to some. But for the most part I really like Pope Benedict’s terms when referring to the SSPX. He spoke of ideologies and about stubbornness

Ideologies are dangerous, because they never fail to take on a life of their own. If that life is in conflict with the Church, you’re in trouble and don’t know it. You don’t realize that you’re in a barrel or trapped by an ideology. One is confusing ideology and values.

Stubbornness can certainly be pride, but not always. I have a dog who is very stubborn. I don’t think she’s proud. The term that I would use is fixated.

I agree that they could do so much good if they were in full communion with the Holy See. But I also warn people about not going overboard with adulation for any of the Traditionalist institutes. It is true that they deserve our respect, support and appreciation.

However, it is also true that there are millions of faithful Catholics: clergy, religious and laymen who are not part of these institutes, don’t want to be part of them, don’t want to be Traditionalists, but have been very faithful to the Church from within their context. They have weathered the storm with great patience and fortitude.

Failure to recognize the value of the Traditionalist institutes is the absence of justice, but so is making statements that sound as if they’re the only ones who are truly Catholic or the only ones who can do something for the Church. That’s a slap in the face to many other good faithful servants.

 

[Cojuanco]

I did not mean to imply the Traditonalists were the only ones doing good in the Church, by no means. I appreciate, for example, the Jesuits too much for that to be the case (as an aside, I’ve yet to meet a Jesuit who is less than completely orthodox in teaching. I know they exist as in all religious communities, but contrary to the belief of some, most Jesuits are faithful sons of the Church). The Church is diverse in how its work is executed, and we should encourage that! But it is always the case that a priest or religious does infinitely more good when he works in communion with Peter than out of it.