They do not see themselves as separate from the Church. No matter the opinions of the individuals, all dogma is defined by Rome.They teach that Jews, as a people, are tainted by a blood curse that renders them morally inferior. I don’t know what to call that but anti-semitic.
I’m not sure I know what to say…except that prior to the liberal modernist ecumania not only willing but eager to dilute and compromise the Truth on every level both conceivable and inconceivable, Rome Herself is the source of the teaching.Xenophobic? I suppose that depends on your definition of xenophobia. Antisemitic? Although I am sure most SSPX members are fine people, I do find the teachings of SSPX to be antisemitic. They teach that Jews, as a people, are tainted by a blood curse that renders them morally inferior. I don’t know what to call that but anti-semitic.
It is true that the Church has accused Jews of Deicide through much of history. It is also true that the Church has treated Jewish people poorly at times. But the SSPX teaches that the Jews bear a curse of “blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom.”I’m not sure I know what to say…except that prior to the liberal modernist ecumania not only willing but eager to dilute and compromise the Truth on every level both conceivable and inconceivable, Rome Herself is the source of the teaching.
you have 2 points to prove, or for the sake of fairness, you must retract your calumny:It is true that the Church has accused Jews of Deicide through much of history. It is also true that the Church has treated Jewish people poorly at times. But the SSPX teaches that the Jews bear a curse of “blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom.”
This teaching - that Jews as a race are incapable of distinguishing good from evil and are paralyzed by desire for earthly goods was not the teaching of Rome prior to Vatican II. It is simply anti-Semitism.
The SSPX makes no claim to the ability to define dogma.But the SSPX teaches that the Jews bear a curse of “blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom.”
The Jews as a race do not really exist anymore.This teaching - that Jews as a race are incapable of distinguishing good from evil and are paralyzed by desire for earthly goods was not the teaching of Rome prior to Vatican II. It is simply anti-Semitism.
Hmm. I wouldn’t think that anyone that refers to Vatican II as a “liberal modernist ecumaniac coup d’etat” would accuse me of calumny with the same breath. Nonetheless - as to your first “proof,” I refer you to the SSPX website’s article on Jews and deicide. The quote in my post is a direct quote from that site. I won’t link to it here. As to the second, the Church has always taught that all men are created in the image of God - the burden to prove that the Church ever taught that an entire race is amoral is on the SSPX and its apologists, not me.you have 2 points to prove, or for the sake of fairness, you must retract your calumny:
and
- prove that the SSPX teaches "that Jews as a race are incapable of distinguishing good from evil and are paralyzed by desire for earthly goods
- prove that what the SSPX does in fact teach is not what the Church has always taught, prior to the liberal modernist ecumaniac coup d’etat.
Proof does not consist of rehashing your argument. Proof consists of directly linking your source text. Do so please.Hmm. I wouldn’t think that anyone that refers to Vatican II as a “liberal modernist ecumaniac coup d’etat” would accuse me of calumny with the same breath. Nonetheless - as to your first “proof,” I refer you to the SSPX website’s article on Jews and deicide. The quote in my post is a direct quote from that site. I won’t link to it here. As to the second, the Church has always taught that all men are created in the image of God - the burden to prove that the Church ever taught that an entire race is amoral is on the SSPX and its apologists, not me.
I didn’t rehash - I told you where I got my information. I will not link to the SSPX site, you can find it.Proof does not consist of rehashing your argument. Proof consists of directly linking your source text. Do so please.
I am not sure what it has to do with my honesty. Here are your statements:However, by taking my remark “liberal modernist ecumaniac coup d’etat” and stating that it irefers to Vatican II when I did not do that pretty well exhibits your honesty. Bravo.
(emphasis mine)I’m not sure I know what to say…except that **prior to the liberal modernist ecumania **not only willing but eager to dilute and compromise the Truth on every level both conceivable and inconceivable, Rome Herself is the source of the teaching.
(again, my bolding)…2) prove that what the SSPX does in fact teach is not what the Church has always taught, prior to the liberal modernist ecumaniac coup d’etat.
597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. the personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . .
CCC 597Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388
All you have done is to make assumptions about what I’ve said rather than ask for clarification until now, but better late than never. But we know that when you “assume” what you make out “u” and “me”. again, bravo.I didn’t rehash - I told you where I got my information. I will not link to the SSPX site, you can find it.
I am not sure what it has to do with my honesty. Here are your statements:
(emphasis mine)
(again, my bolding)
Your statments about “ecumania” and diluting the truth certainly were aimed at defaming something or someone. Since most people who believe in the blood curse date the Church’s “rejection” of it to the publication of the Vatican II document “Nostra Aetate,” I naturally assumed that was the reference. So enlighten me. Who or what is the “modernist ecumania” that is "eager to dilute and compromise the Truth on every level?
While we are on the topic, is the Church wrong to teach this:
CCC 597
Whatever. You can go on with your word games, I did source my statement, but I won’t link to an anti-semitic site. Are you telling me you can’t find the SSPX website?All you have done is to make assumptions about what I’ve said rather than ask for clarification until now, but better late than never. But we know that when you “assume” what you make out “u” and “me”. again, bravo.
you’ve also declined to source that which you avow to be true. Yeah, sure, let’s take your word for it.
Can you twist words any more? Unbelievable.Whatever. You can go on with your word games, I did source my statement, but I won’t link to an anti-semitic site. Are you telling me you can’t find the SSPX website?
Youf demand for more rings hollow, and frankly hypocritical. You claim the Church taught the blood curse and taught Jews were amoral until the Church suffered a “coup d’etat” by “ecumaniacs.” You provide no sources for either statement, and refuse even to say what you mean by “coup d’etat,” or identify the “ecumaniacs.” Are you denying the Church’s teaching? If not why are you defending anti-semitism?
You’re misunderstanding him. He’s only telling you that he won’t link to the SSPX website (I’m not sure if that’s even permitted on here), but that you can find it there (which you can). He isn’t asking you to take his word for it, he even told you where you can find the source.Can you twist words any more? Unbelievable.
But, yeah, sure…let’s take your word for it–the best defense, after all, is a good offense. Good luck with that. You’ll feel like you’ve won a lot, but in reality you only come off as ridiculously inaccurate. Again, bravo. You’ve misquoted me brilliantly.
Lujack,You’re misunderstanding him. He’s only telling you that he won’t link to the SSPX website (I’m not sure if that’s even permitted on here), but that you can find it there (which you can). He isn’t asking you to take his word for it, he even told you where you can find the source.
Lujack,
thank you for being reasonable. You have, though, missed the point. What my point is: he has misquoted me and used my words out of context quite a number of times now. I submit that he is doing so also with those of the SSPX. As another poster has already deftly and appropriately pointed out, what some in an organization claim is sometimes not what the organization itself teaches.
If he misrepresents my words, why would I trust his representation of anyone else’s? Hence the requests.
It saddens me to see a Catholic forum so quick to lodge these insidious accusations against fellow Catholics. Which, is what we all are, by the way…However, in what does that curse consist. Surely it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jewish race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin. The curse is of a different nature, and corresponds to the greatness of the vocation of the Jewish people as a preparation for the Messias, to the superiority of their election, which makes them first in the order of grace. Just as the true Israelites, who accept the Messias, are the first to receive “glory, honor and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rm. 2:10), so also are the first to receive the punishment of their refusal of the Messias: “Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek” (Rm. 2:9). The curse is then the punishment for the hardhearted rebelliousness of a people that has refused the time of its visitation, that has refused to convert and to live a moral, spiritual life, directed towards heaven. This curse is the punishment of blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom. It is this that sets them as a people in entire opposition with the Catholic Church and its supernatural plan for the salvation of souls. Fr. Denis Fahey in The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism explains this radical opposition. He describes “the Naturalism of the Jewish Nation” and the “age-long struggle of the Jewish Nation against the supernatural life of the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 42) He goes on to explain that “we must distinguish accurately between opposition to the domination of Jewish Naturalism in society and hostility to the Jews as a race" which latter form of opposition "is what is designated by the term, ‘Antisemitism,’ and has been more than once condemned by the Church. The former opposition is incumbent on every Catholic and on every true lover of his native land.” (ibid. p. 43) ]
What have I misquoted? I said:Can you twist words any more? Unbelievable.
But, yeah, sure…let’s take your word for it–the best defense, after all, is a good offense. Good luck with that. You’ll feel like you’ve won a lot, but in reality you only come off as ridiculously inaccurate. Again, bravo. You’ve misquoted me brilliantly.
You replied with this:Xenophobic? I suppose that depends on your definition of xenophobia. Antisemitic? Although I am sure most SSPX members are fine people, I do find the teachings of SSPX to be antisemitic. They teach that Jews, as a people, are tainted by a blood curse that renders them morally inferior. I don’t know what to call that but anti-semitic.
What have I twisted out of context? If you are not saying the SSPX’s teaching on the blood curse and the in-born amorality of the Jewish was the teaching of Rome before the “coup d’etat” by “ecumaniacs” what are you saying? What context is missing.I’m not sure I know what to say…except that prior to the liberal modernist ecumania not only willing but eager to dilute and compromise the Truth on every level both conceivable and inconceivable, Rome Herself is the source of the teaching.
What are you referring to here? From my knowledge (and I do not know much about it), Nittel nacht was a time when Jews tried to protect themselves from violent attacks by Christians.People get in an uproar when the TLM prays for the Jews, but nobody knows about Nittel night.