SSPX Update - Redux

[Julia_Mae]

I don’t think that the Vatican is playing the permissive mother. I think that the Vatican may have fallen into another equally frustrating role, that of the anxious mother.

When you have a problem child in a family, you want him to straighten up. Those who are watching, such as the siblings, can get very frustrated when the parent is afraid to put his foot down. The observing sibling wants this nonsense to end so that life can get back to some semblance of normal. However, the anxious parent, who also wants to get back to normal, is afraid of taken a hard position, because the problem child may run away from home and that who knows what will become of him. This parent just keeps hoping and praying that things will change. He continues to offer olive branches to the problem child, hoping that the child will eventually accept one. This does not always work. However, we can’t deny that it can work.

The Vatican’s silence on many things that the SSPX does and says may have a lot to do with anxiety over the welfare of the SSPX.

If your daughter starts dating an unsuitable boy, the last thing you do is criticize the boy. This makes the parent the persecutor, the boyfriend the victim and the daughter the rescuer. The rescuer always has more stamina than the persecutor and will defend to the death the victim. (see: Karpman’s Triangle)

The SSPX cast the “post-Conciliar Church” as the persecutor of the of the One, True, Catholic Church which they were rescuing. And a lot of lay people got dragged into the family fight.

When the daughter breaks curfew and the parent grounds her, she cries, “You just don’t want me to see Billy!” trying to push the parents onto the persecutor point. The parent can avoid this by being firm in saying, “Your curfew is your responsibility and you are my concern and you will accept your punishment and you will in future obey curfew.” Because if they say, “This is Billy’s fault and you can’t see him anymore,” next thing you know, she and Billy have eloped.

Popes seem to me to, for the most part, be really smart people. The concern, I think, is for all the lay people who have been sucked into the argument like a big family where everyone is taking the daughter’s side or the parent’s side. Once she runs off, the divisions stay and can become more acrimonius and more divisive as people blame each other for doing the wrong thing and making her leave or not supporting the parents or… well… lifelong estrangement have happened over less.

The Popes are refusing to be cast in the persecutor role. If they insist, a whole bunch of people will follow the SSPX and there will be a media storm about it all, bigger than anything that has gone before. Bishop Fellay submitted the question to the general chapter because he had no choice. The SSPX created a group who are disobedient by definition and fiat, really, and all that based on Vat2 being an unlawful council.

How is he going to explain that to anyone that this is suddenly all wrong? They are not going to follow if they personally believe he is wrong. There’s no point in Fellay agreeing with what the Pope wants. He’ll be one of like, 5 people returning to full communion and everyone else will carry on as before, even more radical and more sure they are right, because Fellay will have betrayed them and they are the brave souls defending the One True Church. And then the Pope will be forced to declare them the “s” word because their Bishop came home and all heck will break loose.

The best you can do is hope your daughter finds Billy kissing Zelda under the bleachers. Popes have a long historical view. This Pope is reforming the reforms, as it were, and in another twenty years a whole new generation of Catholics will wonder what all the fuss was about. Meanwhile, children of SSPX adults will be rebelling against their parents and dating the mainstream Billys of the Church and the SSPX will wither from disuse.

Bishop Fellay, if he is a reasonable man and a smart one, and my money says he is, knows he will have a more positive effect if he stays in union with the SSPX and works from within. The Popes are fighting a holding action and refusing to go critical.

Seems to me everyone is doing the best possible thing under the circumstances.

 

[choliks]

I had never heard that. However, I can say that CAF was widely ridiculed in the online “SSPX” crowd. So much so that it would be a badge of honour to have never clicked over to CAF. It took me about 7 years to even look in, and when I did, I started reading BrotherJR. What struck me first after being used to the “trad” forums elsewhere was the incredible and true charity of his posting.

Then, secondly, there was and is the education.

Me too! And I used to (forgive me, Brother Jay, please) just hate reading anything Brother JR posted, so I didn’t. I had already been warned against him and his posts.

Then one day I read one of Brother’s posts. And what he wrote not only made a lot of sense but it was kind, gentle and truly edifying. So I read more. Then I started saving everything onto my desktop that he wrote that I knew would be helpful to reread not once but many times.

The rest is history!

St. Clare once told St. Francis to convert Catholics instead of losing sleep and more hair in trying to convert the moors. I think Bro. Jay is just following in his Father’s footsteps.

 

[JReducation]

St. Clare once told St. Francis to convert Catholics instead of losing sleep and more hair in trying to convert the moors. I think Bro. Jay is just following in his Father’s footsteps.

Here is the interesting thing about this conversation between them. At the end of the story, Francis and Dominic both direct their brothers to refrain from preaching in those places where the pastor or the bishop do not authorize it, not matter how badly they may feel that the people need to hear the Gospel.

Because one cannot sell the Gospel while disobeying the Church to whom the Gospel has been entrusted. You cannot separate the Gospel from the Church. The Church is not an abstract. She is both imminent and transcendent. Therefore, she has a tangible chain of command with its head. We have to take our proper place in that chain. Not to do so is to risk becoming a separate magisterium.

How can one claim that one is fulfilling his obligation to the Gospel when he sets himself up on opposition to the hierarchy, distrusts the Holy See and refuses to obey the successor of Peter?

Please remember that the issue between Peter and Paul does not apply here, because it’'s usually taken out of context. When taken in context, Paul never sets out to disobey Peter. On the contrary, he sets out to persuade Peter. Had he failed to do so, he would have accepted Peter’s authority. During his entire exchange with Simon Peter, he never ceases to show his respect for him and for his primacy. Nor does he ever threaten to take his people and go on his way, if Peter rejects his position. The story has to be taken in the context of the lives of Peter and Paul, not one short reading from Acts.

 

[jwinch2]

Here is the interesting thing about this conversation between them. At the end of the story, Francis and Dominic both direct their brothers to refrain from preaching in those places where the pastor or the bishop do not authorize it, not matter how badly they may feel that the people need to hear the Gospel.

St. Dominic was being obedient, as was his nature. However, his personal desire was very much to go preach to the “barbarians” and perhaps even die as a martyr for the Faith. Obviously, God had other plans for him.

 

[JReducation]

St. Dominic was being obedient, as was his nature. However, his personal desire was very much to go preach to the “barbarians” and perhaps even die as a martyr for the Faith. Obviously, God had other plans for him.

Dominic was very obedient. He is a bright light to all of us. Whether he knew it or not, his obedience was the best sermon that he ever preached. When he came upon a town where the clergy was either too ignorant or too corrupt to preach the Gospel, Dominic would go to the local priest and ask for permission to preach in his territory. They didn’t call them pastors back them. That’s a Protestant term that we adopted. That’s a story for another day.

The point is that despite his desire to preach to these poor souls who were being deprived of the Gospel by either ignorance or corruption, obedience always trumped converting. In a rather interesting way, he often managed to convert those priests who were corrupt. They were often astonished at his great kindness when they told him to go away. Some were so ashamed that they would call him back. Others would later call on the Friar Preachers to come to preach to their people, inspired by the Master, Dominic.

Like Francis, Dominic understood Christ much better than we do. We tend to be very literal in our reading of the scriptures. Francis and Dominic were intelligent enough to understand what Jesus said and did within the context of the entire bible from Genesis to Revelation. They did not take passages, events, or teachings in isolation.

Also, they always referred back to the tradition of the Church and then would look to the bishops and popes to tell them if they had it right. They knew that the office of teaching had been given to the Apostles who handed it down to their successors. Neither of them was a successor of the Apostles. Only bishops are successors of the Apostles. Like the early Christians, they referred to the bishops for confirmation of what they understood from scripture and tradition.

I often fear that we have lost this respect and this devotion to the bishops and the popes. We cannot justify ourselves by saying how badly the bishops have behaved or how badly they have let us down. This has been part of the tradition of the Church since the time of the Apostles. Not all bishops were saints. In fact, most were very worldly men. There are many reasons for that, which are not important right now.

The point is that Francis and Dominic turned the Church of the Middle Ages right side up again working with some very difficult bishops. They were often abused by many bishops. They saw the laity abused my many bishops. However, they taught the laity of their time to look past the abuse and to see the Apostle and submit to him in all things but sin.

There is wonderful example that involves Bonaventure and Aquinas. As many people know, these two wee working on the Summa at the University of Paris. A conflict broke out. The local diocesan priests in the Diocese of Paris did not want the friars there. They leveled all kinds of accusations against them, including calling them heretics. The bishop of Parish asked them to leave. Please keep in mind that this was before the Council of Trent. Today this would never be allowed. No bishop can ask a religious order to leave his diocese. In those days they could do so.

The beauty of it is that the Dominican and Franciscan superiors told their men to thank the bishop for his kindness to them and to thank him for the brief period that he had allowed them to stay and then pick up and leave. They left, even though the accusations against them were false and unjust.

Bonaventure and Aquinas went to Rome. They took their case up with the pope. The friars were exonerated and allowed to return to Parish. Bonaventure himself did not return, but went to Assisi to become superior general. But the other Franciscans did return, as did Aquinas and the Dominicans. Aquinas finished the Summa on his own.

The example here is how these men were willing to sacrifice everything they had built up out of obedience, even if it was to an unfriendly bishop. They had built up the philosophy and theology faculty at the University of Parish. Had it not been for the Franciscan and Dominican scholars, we would not have a University of Paris today.

 

[Aramis]

Good Friar,

You mention the general chapter and its decisions in relation to the SSPX… but can Rome treat them as having held one, when by the law itself, both old and new, a suspended cleric is apparently supposed to be denied a vote in all Catholic associations?

Is it in fact legitimate to even speak of the General Chapter of the SSPX as such?

 

[Dee_S]

You are so right, Dee, and I do wish more people understood and acknowledged the reality of this. Unless they’ve walked a mile in our shoes…

:hug3:true, it would be nice if they did,
but it’s great that we have each other…:harp:

 

[Dee_S]

Doesn’t it seem like SSPX is becoming more militantly anti-Rome?

A few months ago it seemed like all the issues had been resolved. Now SSPX and Bp Fellay are making more statements that are critical of Rome. Bp Fellay has seems to have changed his diplomatic attitude and joined those in the Society who have no desire to normalize with Rome.

What are the militant’s goal? Discredit Rome and claim to be the “true Catholic Church?” There’s no chance Rome will change for SSPX. Maybe hope some future Pope will grant them status of being in full communion while SSPX doesn’t change their stance at al?

There are more questions than answers at this point in time. Certainly Bishop Fellay did seem to change - after their general chapter he endorsed the SSPX attack on Archbishop Mueller (who had just been appointed as head of the CDF) accusing him of some serious heresies…

Bishop Fellay’s december 2012 anti-Jewish statements are still making headlines and here is an update & some extracts from the denouncement by Canada’s Catholic Bishops:

Friday, 25 January 2013 13:00 http://www.catholicregister.org/media/k2/items/cache/5243053e6d82a6380ed1b4406a4dd20b_M.jpg
Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of St. Pius X. - CNS photo

                                         OTTAWA - Canada’s Catholic bishops have denounced recent  statements made in Canada by the Society of St. Pius X superior that ** “the Jews” are the “enemies of the Church.”**

“The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops notes that such remarks are not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church,” said the bishops’ conference in a Jan. 18 statement"

"The bishops quoted Holy See spokesman Fr. Federico Lombadi, S.J., who said in response to Fellay’s remarks: “It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the Church.”

“The traditionalist society has been in talks with Rome to bring the schismatic group back into communion with the Holy See. However, the society rejects the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which the group must accept to have its broken relationship with the Holy See regularized. Fellay also blamed the Jews for the Second Vatican Council in his Canadian talk. The society rejects the new order of the Mass, teachings on religious freedom and ecumenism”

**“The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops denounces all forms of anti-Semitism, and rejects assertions such as those reported to have been made by the superior of the Society of St. Pius X, which is a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church,” **the bishops’ statement said.

catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/15741-canadian-bishops-denounce-anti-semitic-talk-by-sspx-leader

 

[Moore11]

Would JR, Dee, and any other person that has had first hand experience with the SSPX please answer this question for me.

I think it is established that Divine Mercy Sunday and Faustina herself are looked unfavorably by the SSPX. (If I am wrong please correct me) My question is this? Why? Is it only because it is a visible representation of something that happened after the Council?

Here is why I am interested. If your read St Faustinia’s diary, or pray the DMC Novena you find some very very appetizing themes for conservatives. The idea of praying for those who are outside the Church you would think would sit well with the SSPX. Their beef seems to stem from this idea that the Church has changed on the idea of salvation outside the Church. But the focus of, hell, repentance, and return to the faith is so strong with the DMC. As a quasi-Trad I find the mention of hell, and the call for the repentance of the lukewarm, atheistic, relativistic society refreshing and needed. In the modern era when many seem to not want to think about or believe such things I find it one of the most true and needed things in the Church at this time. One would think the SSPX would look at the way the Saint and the Pope with the setting of the feast day as something right up their alley. Also a commentary on the Luminous Mysteries and the SSPX would be interesting.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This is a very interesting idea. Scary too, because it acknowledges that the Society is an isolated, insular group. It also says to me that they aren’t drawing in many new people. Their growth is based on family growth of those people who “defected” in the 70s. Their priests are children of the original group who have had very little interaction with the larger world.

That wouldn’t be an issue of discussion at all except that something has to explain how, 40 some odd years later they can maintain that there is still a ‘crisis’ but the rest of us somehow keep going along without being vaporized by the wrath of the Holy Spirit.

1000 postings, eh? I’m afraid I’ve not been able to keep up since midsummer - when our whole community was flooded. Never a dull moment.
I’ve been attending the local SSPX Mass centre for 16 years, & am active in our local (mainstream) parish, except for the Sacraments:

Their growth is based on family growth of those people who “defected” in the 70s.

The congregation has remained close to 100 during that time, but there is a very wide range of background stories - some are third generation, some have died, some have dropped out with or without the rest of their families, many new individuals and also family groups have joined.

the rest of us somehow keep going along without being vaporized by the wrath of the Holy Spirit.

There is one church whose priest organises a weekly Tridentine Mass under Summorum Pontificum, with Bishop Buckley’s (our Ordinary’s) permission. There are also one-off celebrations of Mass or Benediction here and there. The celebrants and congregation where I have been are floundering because they can’t remember the rubrics. Progress is being made via DVDS & CDs, but they would not be there at all if it were not for the SSPX keeping the living tradition alive - through three generations now, as Mrs Sally remarks. I stand on street corners, under no other label than Catholic, handing out Miraculous Medals with leaflets, outlining the most very basic dogmas of the Faith. The issue of the Traditional Rite is not mentioned. The text of the main leaflet is to be found at
sites.google.com/site/catholictopics
Let nobody deceive themselves about Ireland: the vast majority of the younger generation - and their parents - are in deep ignorance of the simplest truths of the Faith.

I hope that your own children are well informed. I ardently hope that the parish schools have actually taught these children the Faith. If not, why not? Was such a situation not unthinkable in 1950? Again, why?

Those wishing to learn what is our diocesan bishop’s response to the contemporary situation are invited to look up
Church will not reject people, says bishop
irishexaminer.com/ireland/church-will-not-reject-people-says-bishop-218553.html
Friday, January 04, 2013

I wrote the following to the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, cc. Bp Buckley. I give only the first two lines of my letter.

Your Grace & Bp Buckley,
I write to you to express my dismay at the following report (please see below) in the Irish Examiner for 4 January 2013.
Were these words accurately reported?

If not, I sincerely hope that you will take legal action.
My comments are prefaced by >MOF:

 

[numealinesimpet]

Would JR, Dee, and any other person that has had first hand experience with the SSPX please answer this question for me.

I think it is established that Divine Mercy Sunday and Faustina herself are looked unfavorably by the SSPX. (If I am wrong please correct me) My question is this? Why? Is it only because it is a visible representation of something that happened after the Council?

Here is why I am interested. If your read St Faustinia’s diary, or pray the DMC Novena you find some very very appetizing themes for conservatives. The idea of praying for those who are outside the Church you would think would sit well with the SSPX. Their beef seems to stem from this idea that the Church has changed on the idea of salvation outside the Church. But the focus of, hell, repentance, and return to the faith is so strong with the DMC. As a quasi-Trad I find the mention of hell, and the call for the repentance of the lukewarm, atheistic, relativistic society refreshing and needed. In the modern era when many seem to not want to think about or believe such things I find it one of the most true and needed things in the Church at this time. One would think the SSPX would look at the way the Saint and the Pope with the setting of the feast day as something right up their alley. Also a commentary on the Luminous Mysteries and the SSPX would be interesting.

I think you are right that the SSPX do not encourage this devotion. I do know some who attend our Mass Centre who do keep this devotion, and others that do not. I have not heard an SSPX priest speak about it. I have not made it a priority to investigate this in great detail. However, I have the following points:
There are some passages in Sr Faustina’s book that give cause for concern.
On page 168, Sr Faustina says: “The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From now on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (From Feb. 4, 1935)
nume: I would not be surprised to hear that {e.g.} Sr Faustina would be promised that she would Pass the Judgment; but surprised to hear that she would “not be judged”?
On page 247, Jesus is represented as saying: *“And know this, too, My daughter: All creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill my will… My daughter, if you wish, I will this instant create a new world, more beautiful than this one, and you will live there for the rest of your life.” *
nume: What did she (or Christ) mean by that?
On page 260, Jesus is represented as saying: *“For many souls will turn back from the gates of Hell and worship My mercy.” *
On page 374, Jesus is represented as saying: *“If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity.” *
On page 382, Jesus is represented as saying: “I desire that My mercy be worshipped.”
nume: A very strange turn of phrase, is it not?
On page 288, Jesus is represented as saying: *“That is why I am uniting myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” *
nume: Did this include Our Lady?
On page 400, Jesus is represented as saying: *“I see your love so pure, purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake I bless the world.” *
On page 417, Jesus is represented as saying to Sr. Faustina: *“Tell the Superior General to count on you as the most faithful daughter in the Order.” *
On page 583, we read that Sr. Faustina said: “When I took the Messenger of the Sacred Heart into my hand and read the account of the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola, my soul was instantly filled with a great longing that our congregation, too, might have a saint and I wept like a child that there was no saint in our midst. And I said to the Lord, ‘I know your generosity, and yet it seems to me that you are less generous towards us.’ And I began again to weep like a little child. And the Lord Jesus said to me, ‘Don’t cry. You are that saint.’”
nume: I for one am uneasy about this lavish praise given to Sr Faustina. It is certainly against the historical norm, not to mention seeming to ignore common prudence. These things, if said to her by Our Lord, would not foster humility, but vanity – that she is basically the greatest thing in the world. It would be against all Church precedent for Our Lord to instruct her to tell her superior that she is the most faithful daughter in the Order. In previous authenticated Apparitions, Our Lord would have used other means if he had wanted these things known.

Theologically, there is this noteworthy point. The Divine Mercy Devotion is centered around Mercy at a time when we are, according to Our Lady of Fatima, coming closer and closer to having filled up the cup of Divine Justice. Our problem, surely, is that we continue to offend Him, with a disregard for the punishments warned about in the New Testament. At this point we need to hear about His Justice.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Would JR, Dee, and any other person that has had first hand experience with the SSPX please answer this question for me.

I think it is established that Divine Mercy Sunday and Faustina herself are looked unfavorably by the SSPX. (If I am wrong please correct me) My question is this? Why? Is it only because it is a visible representation of something that happened after the Council?

Here is why I am interested. If your read St Faustinia’s diary, or pray the DMC Novena you find some very very appetizing themes for conservatives. The idea of praying for those who are outside the Church you would think would sit well with the SSPX. Their beef seems to stem from this idea that the Church has changed on the idea of salvation outside the Church. But the focus of, hell, repentance, and return to the faith is so strong with the DMC. As a quasi-Trad I find the mention of hell, and the call for the repentance of the lukewarm, atheistic, relativistic society refreshing and needed. In the modern era when many seem to not want to think about or believe such things I find it one of the most true and needed things in the Church at this time. One would think the SSPX would look at the way the Saint and the Pope with the setting of the feast day as something right up their alley. Also a commentary on the Luminous Mysteries and the SSPX would be interesting.

I think you are right that the SSPX do not encourage this devotion. I do know some who attend our Mass Centre who do keep this devotion, and others that do not. I have not heard an SSPX priest speak about it. I have not made it a priority to investigate this in great detail. However, I have the following points:
There are some passages in Sr Faustina’s book that give cause for concern.
On page 168, Sr Faustina says: “The moment I knelt down to cross out my own will, as the Lord had bid me to do, I heard this voice in my soul: From now on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged.” (From Feb. 4, 1935)
nume: I would not be surprised to hear that {e.g.} Sr Faustina would be promised that she would Pass the Judgment; but surprised to hear that she would “not be judged”?
On page 247, Jesus is represented as saying: *“And know this, too, My daughter: All creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill my will… My daughter, if you wish, I will this instant create a new world, more beautiful than this one, and you will live there for the rest of your life.” *
nume: What did she (or Christ) mean by that?
On page 260, Jesus is represented as saying: *“For many souls will turn back from the gates of Hell and worship My mercy.” *
On page 374, Jesus is represented as saying: *“If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity.” *
On page 382, Jesus is represented as saying: “I desire that My mercy be worshipped.”
nume: A very strange turn of phrase, is it not?
On page 288, Jesus is represented as saying: *“That is why I am uniting myself with you so intimately as with no other creature.” *
nume: Did this include Our Lady?
On page 400, Jesus is represented as saying: *“I see your love so pure, purer than that of the angels, and all the more so because you keep fighting. For your sake I bless the world.” *
On page 417, Jesus is represented as saying to Sr. Faustina: *“Tell the Superior General to count on you as the most faithful daughter in the Order.” *
On page 583, we read that Sr. Faustina said: “When I took the Messenger of the Sacred Heart into my hand and read the account of the canonization of St. Andrew Bobola, my soul was instantly filled with a great longing that our congregation, too, might have a saint and I wept like a child that there was no saint in our midst. And I said to the Lord, ‘I know your generosity, and yet it seems to me that you are less generous towards us.’ And I began again to weep like a little child. And the Lord Jesus said to me, ‘Don’t cry. You are that saint.’”
nume: I for one am uneasy about this lavish praise given to Sr Faustina. It is certainly against the historical norm, not to mention seeming to ignore common prudence. These things, if said to her by Our Lord, would not foster humility, but vanity – that she is basically the greatest thing in the world. It would be against all Church precedent for Our Lord to instruct her to tell her superior that she is the most faithful daughter in the Order. In previous authenticated Apparitions, Our Lord would have used other means if He had wanted these things known.

As to the Luminous Mysteries: Note that Bl. Pope John Paul II specifically enacted that they are by choice, not mandatory for the Faithful. Our Lady of Fatima, when she announced the Devotion of the First Saturdays, specifically asked for ‘15 minutes meditation on the fifteen Mysteries of the Rosary’.
There is a beautiful symmetry in the ‘Dominican’ Rosary.

I spoke recently to an SSPX priest on another matter. He replied that the SSPX position is that certain innovations are manifestly harmful to the mandate given to the Church and others are not. It is not within the authority of the SSPX to make judgments on these things. But we do have a safe guide. The Saints and Fathers have always said: When in doubt over a matter of doctrine, go to the past. Do what was the universal practice of the Church, because this cannot have been wrong. Therefore, pending a definitive ruling by the Church, it is more prudent simply to ignore innovations for the present. That seems to me to be good sense, - indeed to be good Catholic practice.

I’m speaking only as a private individual, you realise.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There are more questions than answers at this point in time. Certainly Bishop Fellay did seem to change - after their general chapter he endorsed the SSPX attack on Archbishop Mueller (who had just been appointed as head of the CDF) accusing him of some serious heresies…

Bishop Fellay’s december 2012 anti-Jewish statements are still making headlines and here is an update & some extracts from the denouncement by Canada’s Catholic Bishops:

Friday, 25 January 2013 13:00 http://www.catholicregister.org/media/k2/items/cache/5243053e6d82a6380ed1b4406a4dd20b_M.jpg
Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of St. Pius X. - CNS photo

                                         OTTAWA - Canada’s Catholic bishops have denounced recent  statements made in Canada by the Society of St. Pius X superior that ** “the Jews” are the “enemies of the Church.”**

“The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops notes that such remarks are not in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church,” said the bishops’ conference in a Jan. 18 statement"

"The bishops quoted Holy See spokesman Fr. Federico Lombadi, S.J., who said in response to Fellay’s remarks: “It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the Church.”

“The traditionalist society has been in talks with Rome to bring the schismatic group back into communion with the Holy See. However, the society rejects the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which the group must accept to have its broken relationship with the Holy See regularized. Fellay also blamed the Jews for the Second Vatican Council in his Canadian talk. The society rejects the new order of the Mass, teachings on religious freedom and ecumenism”

**“The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops denounces all forms of anti-Semitism, and rejects assertions such as those reported to have been made by the superior of the Society of St. Pius X, which is a schismatic group not in communion with the Catholic Church,” **the bishops’ statement said.

catholicregister.org/news/canada/item/15741-canadian-bishops-denounce-anti-semitic-talk-by-sspx-leader

Just one comment on this for tonight: It is no longer possible to describe the SSPX as ‘schismatic’, or that they are not in communion with the Holy See. The decree of excommunication of the bishops was lifted without any retraction of a single point, nor was any formal act of reconciliation made, as must happen with a returning schismatic. They have not been given a formal canonical role within the Church, but that is not the same thing. The SSPX accept that they are not given a formal role in the Church: they claim that they are performing correctly within a Situation of Emergency. Their position is anomalous, but they maintain that the withholding of a formal recognition is due to the current state of the Vatican - of which objective examples are given - and can only be rectified by the Vatican.

Bp Fellay’s Comments on the Jews, Masons and Modernists are explicated on their website. It is made particularly clear that there is no targeting of individual Jews or judgment made of their motives. However, insofar as they are not ‘with’ Christ they are ‘against’ Him. In saying this the SSPX are merely repeating the words of Our Lord Himself. This is the sense in which the Church has always used the expression ‘enemies of the Church’. There are certain quotations from Our Lord in the Gospels which would perhaps be denounced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops…

 

[GloriaMaria]

There are certain quotations from Our Lord in the Gospels which would perhaps be denounced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops…

What do you suppose are those quotations?

 

[numealinesimpet]

What do you suppose are those quotations?

These were all directed at the Jewish leaders, never at the rank-and-file:-

“Serpents, brood of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of Hell?”
“You will search for Me, and you will die in your sins”.
“If I said otherwise, I should be like unto you, a liar”.
"He will take the vineyard away from you, and will give it to another’
(that last one is hazier in my memory than the others)

And to ‘the multitudes’ in general (who were overwhelmingly Jewish) -
“He who is not with Me is against Me, and He who does not gather with Me, scatters”.

Note that He by no means impugned their authority - “The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon the Seat of Moses. Therefore listen to them, but do not imitate them”.

 

[pnewton]

There are certain quotations from Our Lord in the Gospels which would perhaps be denounced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops…

I bet you can not find one place where the CCC has every denounced the words of Jesus.

This isn’t nice. You might want to refresh yourself on the rules before you get this shut down.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I bet you can not find one place where the CCC has every denounced the words of Jesus.

Any more slander you want to commit?

That wasn’t slander. Look up the meaning.
As I was saying, Bp Fellay & the SSPX are being denounced for saying "he who is not with Me is against Me’, which are the words of Christ.

 

[pnewton]

That wasn’t slander. Look up the meaning.

Sure.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

slan·der

[slan-der] Show IPA
noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

1. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

 

[clem456]

These were all directed at the Jewish leaders, never at the rank-and-file:-

“Serpents, brood of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of Hell?”
“You will search for Me, and you will die in your sins”.
“If I said otherwise, I should be like unto you, a liar”.
"He will take the vineyard away from you, and will give it to another’
(that last one is hazier in my memory than the others)

And to ‘the multitudes’ in general (who were overwhelmingly Jewish) -
“He who is not with Me is against Me, and He who does not gather with Me, scatters”.

Note that He by no means impugned their authority - “The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon the Seat of Moses. Therefore listen to them, but do not imitate them”.

These sayings are not directed at Judaism.These words apply to all people of all time. It is the living Word of God…it applies to you and I right now. The bible is not just a history book.

 

[choliks]

These were all directed at the Jewish leaders, never at the rank-and-file:-

**“Serpents, brood of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of Hell?”
“You will search for Me, and you will die in your sins”.
“If I said otherwise, I should be like unto you, a liar”.
"He will take the vineyard away from you, and will give it to another’
(that last one is hazier in my memory than the others)

And to ‘the multitudes’ in general (who were overwhelmingly Jewish) -
“He who is not with Me is against Me, and He who does not gather with Me, scatters”.
**
Note that He by no means impugned their authority - “The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon the Seat of Moses. Therefore listen to them, but do not imitate them”.

Wow. Just wow.

You started with a “never rank-and-file” then ended with the “overwhelmingly Jewish” So which one is it? Are we talking about Jews in general, or just persons in authority who are hypocritical who happen to be Jews. Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?

Christ is the Head of the Church, and they are one. Because there are Catholics from both sides of the spectrum who are against the Church, they too are against Christ. He who si not with Him is against Him, and he who does not gather with Him, scatters.