SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/rumor-thats-it-rumor/

First of all, I object to their meeting in Vienna, Va. I’m from Manassas, VA, not too far from Vienna. The last thing that Catholics there need is this complication. The Arlington Diocese is still one of the havens of Catholicism in this country. It’s people are very good and very orthodox Catholics. The presence of this group would confuse them very much.

The citation that said that Bishop Williamson may ordain Fr. Pfeiffer as bishop explains something that I had not understood. A few weeks ago, Archbishop Mueller publicly said, “Bishop Williamson is no longer Catholic.”

I thought those were harsh words and waited for a clarification from the Vatican; but it never came. Which told me that the Holy Father and the other dicastries must agree with this assessment. Then I went back to the interview with the Holy Father, Light of the World, and read where the Holy Father said, “Bishop Williamson has never lived in the larger Church. In a sense, he has never been fully Catholic.” I thought that Archbishop Mueller could be paraphrasing the Holy Father.

Given this information, maybe there is more to this, which the Holy See knows about and the rest of the world is just finding out in pieces here and there. We’ll just have pray, wait and see.

Having said all this, I always like to read the comments that people write on these pages. I found the tone of hostility and the words of hatred toward the Holy Father, Archbishop Mueller and the Vatican to be very sad. No matter how many mistakes the Vatican may make, which have been many over 2,000 years, a holy Catholic does not express himself the way that these folks express themselves.

I have heard the old argument that one has to be patient and understand that they are frustrated. I’m sorry, but there were other people in our Catholic history who were frustrated as well during times of challenge: the Fathers of the Church, St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Bernard, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, Bl. Mother Teresa, Bl. John Paul II, Bl. John XXIII, St. Pius X, and the list can go on. All of these holy men and women dealt with challenges inside and outside the Church. They never spoke rudely or without restraint against anyone.

I believe that we have a generation of codependent people. This morning, I was standing outside after mass as I do every Sunday. One of our Secular Franciscans and his children were coming out of the church. I greeted them. The oldest, a 16 year old, just kept walking. I called out after her, “GOOD MORNING!” She did not acknowledge my greeting. Her father quickly chimed in, “She’s tired.”

I just smiled and nodded. But I’m not buying it. Tired, in a bad mood, unhappy with something, frustrated with something else, gout or anything short of labor pains, does not justify rudeness. I’ll give women in labor a pass.

These folks who posted that Archbishop Mueller is a heretic and that the Vatican is in schism are no in labor. I don’t give them a pass. The hierarchy has the right to be treated and spoken about respectfully. Christ has earned that right for the Church.

 

[LoyalViews]

UGH! I am so tired of this SSPX-outside-the-Church stuff. They need to just admit their faults, circle the wagons and come back. Besides, I want to be able to live to see a licit episcopal consecration in the EF of (one of) their future bishop(s). From the snippets of the ceremonies I see online, they are extremely interesting.

I agree with you, but while I disagree with the SSPX’s position I can see their argument, though it’s not entirely valid.

They want to preserve the traditions of the Church, and their efforts are not wasted, however they’d be 110% more effective if they were within the literal arms of the Church, fully and undisputed.

I think Bp Fellay would be a good shepherd, actually, and I wouldn’t doubt his eligibility to be a Cardinal, of course that being God’s will, and not ours.

 

[JReducation]

They boasted a whopping 10 (ten) priests on the retreat. And crowed that upwards of 20 could have been there…
If you ask me a a group that thinks the SSPX is too liberal will have a short life no matter how many Bishops they consecrate. We wont be talking about the “resistance” in 500 years…
I think taking the radicals out of the SSPX will only clear the way for the good Bishops and priests to come back in. Think about it. Fellay is witnessing what will happen to this splinter group. What in the world is stopping the other 480 priests from coming into full communion. I honestly think getting rid of the ultra hard liners in the group will facilitate Fellay’s SSPX to come back into the fold. Honestly I think this will happen relatively quickly.
During last years debacle people were opining that Fellay was trying to avoid a split. Well if this is true it is too late to avoid. So Fellay can go ahead and sign the next thing that comes to his desk. Methinks this could also be why Fellay has not officially responded and the Vatican is giving him “extra” time.

I believe that a split was always in the cards. Other groups that have come back have lost members. The SSPX is not going to be the exception. I don’t think that Bishop Fellay expected to have 100% support.

As for coming back soon, I tend to agree with you. As I said once before, the SSPX bishops are not getting younger. If they ordain successors, it’s going to be a perilous move.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with you, but while I disagree with the SSPX’s position I can see their argument, though it’s not entirely valid.

They want to preserve the traditions of the Church, and their efforts are not wasted, however they’d be 110% more effective if they were within the literal arms of the Church, fully and undisputed.

I think Bp Fellay would be a good shepherd, actually, and I wouldn’t doubt his eligibility to be a Cardinal, of course that being God’s will, and not ours.

Do you really think that Bishop Fellay would accept separation from the Society to take on an administrative post in some other place.?

 

[ringil]

Actually it’s Bishop Williamson that mooted the possibility of consecrating bishops.

OK gotcha, sorry.

 

[PrayRosary]

They did such a good job, that when I was widowed, I decided to become a Franciscan. Now that’s what I call working overtime. :yup:

No, in all seriousness, what attracted me was the passion and sweetness in the friars whenever a Franciscan holy day came around and when they spoke about the Seraphic Father. They were so enthusiastic. No matter what you said, they always had a sage piece of advice from St. Francis or one of the early Franciscans. Then there is the great solemnity of St. Francis, which is a long as the Easter Triduum and follows the same patter of liturgical celebrations, culminating with the solemn mass celebrating Francis’ entrance into glory.

I was only 10 at the time. I was in their school because in southern schools they practiced segregation and we were not welcome. The only other choices were to move to another town or attend a Catholic school that welcomed Jews and did not try to convert us. When we found out that the Franciscans ran the local parish and school, my parents were thrilled. The Franciscans have a very good reputation among Israelis. They have been in Palestine since 1219. My brothers and I were the only boys in Catholic school uniforms who wore a kippah. We had to take religion class, because it’s an academic subject. We didn’t have to participate in any religious services unless we wanted to. My parents insisted that we attend and sit politely or stand when the congregation stood. We were not allowed to kneel. Jews don’t kneel.

The kindness of the friars and their love for their father triggered my curiosity about this man at the age of 10. I started to read as much as I could find on him. After my Bar Mitzvah it became clear to me that the next logical step, once I had accepted my place as a Jewish man, was to follow the Covenant. I found the Covenant being lived by the friars. This pushed me to want to learn more about Francis of Assisi. I wanted to know about this man that had such a tight hold on these men 750 years later.

You can’t study Francis of Assisi and not see Jesus. If you don’t see Jesus, it’s the wrong Francis. What impressed me most were his obedience, his detachment, his love for his brothers and his charm. He was everything but a stuffy Catholic as were many whom I had met. He was actually very funny and very naive at times, which made him adorable.

I had already been through years of religious education. See Catholicism lived by the friars and having it explained by Francis’ simple gestures and passion for the scriptures sealed the deal for me. By 16 I knew that in order to be a good Jew, I had to become like Francis. The rest is history. That was 46 years ago, but I remember it as if it were yesterday.

From my perspective, the Good Friday prayer says exactly what it needs to say, because it is comprehensible to any Jew without being offensive. This is important when we raise public prayers for others. The prayer has to reflect our faith, be comprehensible to the person for whom we pray and avoid antagonizing that person. Otherwise, you’re asking God for the impossible. You’re asking God to convert someone who believes that you hate him.

Awesome:thumbsup:

 

[Moore11]

From the PDF that cited.

Let us make clear that our main enemy is first of all the conciliar church. Our fist attacks go to
those “officials” who are destroying the Catholic Church. Their destructive work is making day
after day tremendous ravages and, as a consequence, many souls are irreparably lost.
But it is not enough to claim that one is opposed to the Modernist Rome, as the leaders of the
neo-SSPX claim, and at the same time favor an agreement with the same Rome! Therefore, all
those who are seeking an agreement with the enemies of the Church, should be exposed and
attacked as well. And this
is the reason why we are
resisting the superiors of
the neo-SSPX. We have to
denounce them because
they are compromising
with the conciliar church
and betraying the mission
Archp. Lefebvre entrusted
to the Society of St Pius X.

To me this is quite laughable and void of logic. But if you look at the 2 statements by the 2 main factions here you have an interesting disagreement. Fellay recently felt the need to talk of what the “enemies” are both real and imagined. (real: masons, progressivism and imagined: Jewish people.) While, Williamson (I think is responsible for the PDF) says that the enemy is the Conciliar Church, which is the Catholic Church. In fact he goes so far as to call this the first and foremost enemy.
Attacking the Church as your enemy and wont get you far. Especially when you have such a small pool of people to draw from. Now Fellay used some language which we have all been commenting about but Fellay’s group in the US released a statement “clarifying” the statements a little. (not enough) But what this shows is someone who is willing to take direction and correction. And Williamson and his ilk are going so far as to call the Church that the Pope heads it’s number one enemy.
Honestly It is becoming crystal clear that we might be on the brink of most of the SSPX coming home and Williamson’s group being in schism. A good new bad news sort of situation.

 

[LoyalViews]

Do you really think that Bishop Fellay would accept separation from the Society to take on an administrative post in some other place.?

No, I don’t, though the idea is interesting

 

[JReducation]

From the PDF that cited.

To me this is quite laughable and void of logic. But if you look at the 2 statements by the 2 main factions here you have an interesting disagreement. Fellay recently felt the need to talk of what the “enemies” are both real and imagined. (real: masons, progressivism and imagined: Jewish people.) While, Williamson (I think is responsible for the PDF) says that the enemy is the Conciliar Church, which is the Catholic Church. In fact he goes so far as to call this the first and foremost enemy.
Attacking the Church as your enemy and wont get you far. Especially when you have such a small pool of people to draw from. Now Fellay used some language which we have all been commenting about but Fellay’s group in the US released a statement “clarifying” the statements a little. (not enough) But what this shows is someone who is willing to take direction and correction. And Williamson and his ilk are going so far as to call the Church that the Pope heads it’s number one enemy.
Honestly It is becoming crystal clear that we might be on the brink of most of the SSPX coming home and Williamson’s group being in schism. A good new bad news sort of situation.

Whenever someone uses the word “attack” my red flags go up. The posture of the saints has always be defensive, not offensive. They have defended the faith. They have never attacked those outside of the faith.

I always have to go back to my Franciscan roots. St. Francis loved the Muslims. He even brought home gifts from his trip to the Middle East, which we still have. He introduced a few Muslim customs into Franciscan life, which we still practice. Yet, he defended the Christians in the Holy Land and negotiated a treaty in order to go out there and minister to them.

St. John Da Matha loved the Muslims. He particular loved their sense of humor and their strong fidelity to their beliefs, right or wrong. He acknowledged the good that he saw in them. He taught his friars to respect what was good about the Muslims and to appeal to it in order to liberate captives from the Muslim’s prisons. And so the Friars of the Most Holy Trinity went off with the Crusaders, but not on the offensive. The first thing they did when they arrived at a place that was occupied by the Muslims was to look for the leader and pay their respects. They proceeded from there to negotiate. They were very good at what they did. To this day, they are still very good at what they do in the Middle East and other countries where Christians are under attack. I wish we had more Trinitarian Friars.

The word attack does not sit well with me. I have seen very little good come from people with that mindset. All the good that I have seen has come from people who have defended the faith and defended the faithful WITHOUT engaging in an attack.

No, I don’t, though the idea is interesting

I can’t imagine him taking on a diocese where he would be forced to accept the OF, accept sisters without habits, deal with social as well a spiritual issues and even accept the possibility of having other religious orders in his diocese and not having any authority or voice over them and over what they do or how they do it. As long as they don’t violate Canon Law, the bishop must maintain his hands off.

Can Bishop Fellay live in such a setting and can he administer without getting an ulcer? I can’t imagine it. I can imagine him taking over my diocese and coming to my community to try to set our brothers right and one of the brothers saying something like, “Excuse me Your Excellency while I ask Father Superior if it’s OK to do what you’re asking me to do or to stop doing what you’re asking me to stop.” Can you imagine that?

 

[Aramis]

Can Bishop Fellay live in such a setting and can he administer without getting an ulcer? I can’t imagine it. I can imagine him taking over my diocese and coming to my community to try to set our brothers right and one of the brothers saying something like, “Excuse me Your Excellency while I ask Father Superior if it’s OK to do what you’re asking me to do or to stop doing what you’re asking me to stop.” Can you imagine that?

Having known a Dominican who did pretty much that same thing… at a Cathedral Parish… and the Bishop’s response was “Ok, let me know.” (Mind you, it was over shoes… the Superior worked out a compromise that worked for both. No sandals, but decorated canvas sneakers to meet his medical requirements were agreed upon.)

Still, I can’t envision Bp. Fellay saying “Ok, let me know.”

I can certainly envision a friar - ANY friar - doing so. Politely. Some might even ask if their permission for public masses was withdrawn until it was adjudicated, and who is to cover their assigned public masses.

But I see a consistent pattern of “SSPX Way or the Highway” - going right back to 1973. When they skipped the Diocesan Right approval stage and sought to skip from Pia Unio to Papal Right.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Finally, those who feel that the Good Friday prayer for the Jews is weak are missing the point of the prayer.

You are missing the point of the objection to the Good Friday prayer. What are Catholics really praying for when they pray for Jews to “more closely follow the covenant”?

The point is that the Jews will reach the fulfillment of the Covenant. If they do so, they will find Christ, because Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenants that God made with Israel…The Covenant prepared Israel for Christ.

So “the covenant” mentioned in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews is what Christians call the Old Covenant, correct? That means that for over 40 years now Catholics have been praying for Jews to “more closely follow” the Old Covenant, correct?

And how do the Jews do that? How do the Jews more closely follow the Old Covenant? By rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem and resuming animal sacrifices.

This is very serious. On Good Friday, the most solemn day of the year in the Catholic Church, the day when Catholics commemorate the Perfect Sacrifice – the Sacrifice to end all sacrifices – one could reasonably argue that Catholics are inadvertently praying for Jews, who reject the Perfect Sacrifice, to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

I do not make these remarks to be mean-spirited. I am a cradle Catholic who still has warm feelings for the Catholic Church and who still defends her when she is attacked by non-Catholics.

But I have been astonished by the direction that the Church has taken since Vatican 2. When I finally lost my faith in the Catholic Church, I lost my faith, period.

 

[missadeangelis]

Whenever someone uses the word “attack” my red flags go up. The posture of the saints has always be defensive, not offensive. They have defended the faith. They have never attacked those outside of the faith.

I always have to go back to my Franciscan roots. St. Francis loved the Muslims. He even brought home gifts from his trip to the Middle East, which we still have. He introduced a few Muslim customs into Franciscan life, which we still practice. Yet, he defended the Christians in the Holy Land and negotiated a treaty in order to go out there and minister to them.

St. John Da Matha loved the Muslims. He particular loved their sense of humor and their strong fidelity to their beliefs, right or wrong. He acknowledged the good that he saw in them. He taught his friars to respect what was good about the Muslims and to appeal to it in order to liberate captives from the Muslim’s prisons. And so the Friars of the Most Holy Trinity went off with the Crusaders, but not on the offensive. The first thing they did when they arrived at a place that was occupied by the Muslims was to look for the leader and pay their respects. They proceeded from there to negotiate. They were very good at what they did. To this day, they are still very good at what they do in the Middle East and other countries where Christians are under attack. I wish we had more Trinitarian Friars.

The word attack does not sit well with me. I have seen very little good come from people with that mindset. All the good that I have seen has come from people who have defended the faith and defended the faithful WITHOUT engaging in an attack.

I can’t imagine him taking on a diocese where he would be forced to accept the OF, accept sisters without habits, deal with social as well a spiritual issues and even accept the possibility of having other religious orders in his diocese and not having any authority or voice over them and over what they do or how they do it. As long as they don’t violate Canon Law, the bishop must maintain his hands off.

Can Bishop Fellay live in such a setting and can he administer without getting an ulcer? I can’t imagine it. I can imagine him taking over my diocese and coming to my community to try to set our brothers right and one of the brothers saying something like, “Excuse me Your Excellency while I ask Father Superior if it’s OK to do what you’re asking me to do or to stop doing what you’re asking me to stop.” Can you imagine that?

I think it’s important to explicitly mention that St. Francis sought to CONVERT the Muslims to the Christian (Catholic) Faith. He was willing to risk being martyred to bring the Truth of Christ to the Muslims and this was how he sought to bring about peace. Conversion to the Christian Faith without violently “attacking” the Muslims was the end goal. St. Francis was a very Holy and zealous missionary who preached Christ without compromise to save souls. Perhaps you were already implying this, Brother, but many people today have a tendency to think St. Francis was like some modern ecumenist engaging in “dialogue” in an attempt to diminish the very real differences between the one true Catholic Faith and Islam to facilitate some sort of pluralist religious compromise. I would agree that he “loved the Muslims” insofar as he worked fervently to preach Christ to them so as to save their souls, bringing the Truth of Christ to non-Christians with great zeal. IMHO the end objective to convert non-believers has to be present in order to truly defend the Faith.

mda

 

[missadeangelis]

This doesn’t make sense to me. If the SSPX, as I understand the situation, didn’t repudiate Vat2, there’d be no problem. They don’t even understand it, so how could they help anyone else understand it?

It seems to me that there is almost a universal misunderstanding of Vatican II because everybody seems to have their own interpretation of what it actually taught. The problem is not unique to the SSPX IMHO. I know there are many in full communion with the Church who don’t understand Vatican II and really have no business trying to explain it to others. That said, only the Pope has the authority to make binding interpretations.

mda

 

[severus68]

It seems to me that there is almost a universal misunderstanding of Vatican II because everybody seems to have their own interpretation of what it actually taught. The problem is not unique to the SSPX IMHO. I know there are many in full communion with the Church who don’t understand Vatican II and really have no business trying to explain it to others. That said, only the Pope has the authority to make binding interpretations.

mda

There are many who have never read the VatII documents, do not understand, but just practice their Faith. So, why do some want to question eveyrthing like learned theologians which they are not? l will take what a humble, charitable friar says over people with a “I know better” attitude.

 

[fordhamstudent]

The essential problem with the Society is it does not understand the context and situation of the Vatican II documents. When you locate the Council in the time is was convened one can easily understand the Council’s concern was broader than the mere repudiation of heresies, but the survival of the Church and the human race from nuclear war and the destruction of humanity–which was the context of the 1960’s.

The Church at that time was afraid for its survival so instead of being a Council which solely rubber stamped Trent and Vatican I the writers of Council documents were one’s who could meet the need of modern Church to articulate the Catholic faith in an age of survival. Pope John XXIII was known as a very traditional and orthodox Pontiff, but even he could read “the signs of the times” and thus under the influence of the Spirit convened the Council to save the world from itself and to update the Church to respond to the modern sensibilities of men and nations. This *aggiornamento *only desired to re-present the orthodox Catholic faith and practice to a world who was finding that the Church was not only irrelevant but also disconnected from the developments which occured after the Enlightenment, Industrial and Technological Ages. The Church preserved the form of the Sacraments, the essential Catholic faith and praxis, and the spirit of the Church while updating and reforming elements which could legitimately be revised.

The problem is the catechesis on the documents of the Council was poor, after Vatican II, and many of the laity, some priests, and even bishops did not understand not only the situation and context of the Council but also the theology of the documents themselves–all that could be seen was mere external reforms in liturgy and social doctrine which were transformed to meet the Council’s need to bring the Church to the modern age and make it relevant and re-present the teachings of Christ so that men might not only understand them, but also live them more aptly within their social and historical context.

The Society is rejecting essentially the right of the Church in communion with the Pope and bishops to not only convene and Ecumenical Council but also reform the Church–a process which had started at Trent and continued and reached its zenith at the Council. The Society in preserving the stage of reform both in liturgy and doctrine from 1950-1962 does not give it the canonical right to tell the Pope of Rome and the bishops what they ought to do–the concession of the Roman Pontiff now to bring back the Reformed Liturgy of 1962 is in essence out of love for ecclesial unity and not a repudiation of the Second Vatican Council. The Society must above all things and in true humility submit not only to the Pope of Rome, but also the Holy Ecumenical Council of Vatican II otherwise they are in disobedience to the Holy Spirit who through Pope John XXIII convened the Council to save the world from the destruction of nuclear power. It is within this context that although the Society has preserved a short period of liturgical and doctrinal development they nevertheless not unlike the many of the Old Catholic sects are only destined for schism after schism and like the Orthodox Church to become a stagnant, however Catholic, Church frozen in time and starving for the life which comes through being in communion with the Pope and the latest Ecumenical Council.

 

[missadeangelis]

There are many who have never read the VatII documents, do not understand, but just practice their Faith. So, why do some want to question eveyrthing like learned theologians which they are not? l will take what a humble, charitable friar says over people with a “I know better” attitude.

Catholics have a responsibility to learn and grow in THE Faith, not practice “their” own faith or personally constructed version of Catholicism lest they become lukewarm or fall into error. This is an objective undertaking. The second sentence does not follow the first. Nobody is condemning those who have not read the Vatican II documents and this has nothing to do with those who wish to make the effort to deepen their understanding and appreciation of the Faith by delving into the second Vatican Council, it’s documents an it’s teachings, neither of which are insignificant. This is a discussion forum after all. IMHO and with all due respect, it’s important to remember that, unless the Pope joins our discussions, no one speaks infallibly with the authority of the Church on these forums, be they religious, ordained, lay or otherwise.

 

[JReducation]

You are missing the point of the objection to the Good Friday prayer. What are Catholics really praying for when they pray for Jews to “more closely follow the covenant”?

So “the covenant” mentioned in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews is what Christians call the Old Covenant, correct? That means that for over 40 years now Catholics have been praying for Jews to “more closely follow” the Old Covenant, correct?

And how do the Jews do that? How do the Jews more closely follow the Old Covenant? By rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem and resuming animal sacrifices.

Not at all. Look at St. Edith Stein, Mother Miriam of the Lam and me, we have fulfilled the Old Covenant. We are still Jews. Do you see us offering animal sacrifices? That is not how the Covenant is fulfilled. The Covenant is fulfilled when one discovers Christ.

This is very serious. On Good Friday, the most solemn day of the year in the Catholic Church, the day when Catholics commemorate the Perfect Sacrifice – the Sacrifice to end all sacrifices – one could reasonably argue that Catholics are inadvertently praying for Jews, who reject the Perfect Sacrifice, to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

Any Christian who argues this, does not understand the Covenant between God and Israel. The Covenant leads to Christ.

I do not make these remarks to be mean-spirited. I am a cradle Catholic who still has warm feelings for the Catholic Church and who still defends her when she is attacked by non-Catholics.

I have not attacked the Church. On the contrary. I gave my life to the Church and so have thousands of Jewish Catholics or Hebrew Catholics.

But I have been astonished by the direction that the Church has taken since Vatican 2. When I finally lost my faith in the Catholic Church, I lost my faith, period.

It is a difficult time. But if we make an effort, we gradually understand what the Council wants and we can look back at the time between the Council and today to see what part of the Council we did not understand and how we fix our the result of our misunderstanding.

 

[JReducation]

I think it’s important to explicitly mention that St. Francis sought to CONVERT the Muslims to the Christian (Catholic) Faith. He was willing to risk being martyred to bring the Truth of Christ to the Muslims and this was how he sought to bring about peace. Conversion to the Christian Faith without violently “attacking” the Muslims was the end goal. St. Francis was a very Holy and zealous missionary who preached Christ without compromise to save souls.

This has never been in doubt. The problem is that there is a tendency on the radical traditionalist side to look at this dimension of St. Francis single missionary trip (he was not a missionary per se) and forget that he was a very gentle missionary. The radical traditionalist wants to portray him as a forceful, militant preacher, which he was not and which he adamantly opposed so much that he prohibits such preaching in our rule. The friars are to preach with conviction, but with great gentleness and kindness.

Perhaps you were already implying this, Brother, but many people today have a tendency to think St. Francis was like some modern ecumenist engaging in “dialogue” in an attempt to diminish the very real differences between the one true Catholic Faith and Islam to facilitate some sort of pluralist religious compromise.

He was an ecumenist, but your definition and his are not the same. He did engage in a dialogue and as a matter-of-fact, he made a treat with the Muslims of Egypt that if they allowed the Franciscans to take over the Christian sites in the Holy Land, the Catholic Church would back off and never proselytize to the Muslims and Jews. When he returned to Rome, Pope Gregory IX agreed to this. The Franciscan Province of the Holy Land was created and less than 50 years later, the pope created the Cutody of the Holy Land placing it under his jurisdiction with a Franciscan as the Custos and the Franciscans in charge of all Catholic presence in Palestine. To this day, the Church honors that promise not to proselytize to Jews and Muslims.

Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have agree with Pope Gregory IX that such proselytism is not necessary. We preach by our life, example and charity. God takes care of the rest. People like Edith Stein, Rosiland Moss and me are proof that this is the way that God works for Jews and Muslims. There are many of us. There is a famous Cardinal of Parish, whose name I can’t remember, because I’m too old. He too was a Jew. He converted by the example of the Polish Franciscans. There were many Jews who converted because of the example of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

We know that St. Maximilian lead the Jews in the concentration camp in the observance of the Sabbath, because they had no Rabbi. St. Max, knew the ritual and he was respected by the Jews in prison with him. He tried to protect them. I don’t know how many, but many were present at his beatification and canonization and they were Catholic Jews, because of his example of love.

I would agree that he “loved the Muslims” insofar as he worked fervently to preach Christ to them so as to save their souls, bringing the Truth of Christ to non-Christians with great zeal. IMHO the end objective to convert non-believers has to be present in order to truly defend the Faith.

I don’t see why we’re discussing this. It has nothing to do with the SSPX and no one has denied it. However, you have left out that Francis also introduced certain Muslim customs into the Franciscan order, which are present to this day and that he spoke highly of their faithfulness to God. He was not one to notice the wrong and ignore the good. He was a truly just man, which is why many Muslims still venerate him as a sufi. Which is an Arabic word for a mystic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There is a famous Cardinal of Parish, whose name I can’t remember, because I’m too old. He too was a Jew. .

Are you talking about Jean-Marie Lustiger? Paris, right?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I’m going to make this very clear and there is no argument about this and no questions either. It is what it is. Period.

If you want to keep this thread open, you must observe the same rules of decorum that you observed in the first edition of this thread.

DO NOT

1. Find fault with everything another person says. The purpose of the discussion is to share ideas, not to find fault.
2. Introduce points that have nothing to do with the conversation. It only confuses people.
3. Make any statements that are contrary to what the Holy Father has said, Archbishop Mueller, Archbishop DiNoia or anyone in the hierarchy. In other words, do not contradict them on this forum. This forum is for helping others understand what the Church says, not what others say.
4. Share your opinion, if its negative. Negativity only triggers arguments
5. Send passive aggressive messages that say “IMHO you’re wrong and I’m right”.

People can disagree without being disagreeable. Use only the language that the CDF would use. Speak to each other as if you were speaking to one of the cardinals at the CDF, with the same degree of scholarship, respect, and attentiveness to what the other person is saying.

If we do this well, we can set an example for people on both sides of the aisle how to discuss these issues without antagonism.

Should you have a problem, please PM me. Do not post it on the thread as I may not see it.

Thank You.