Friday, June 19, 2009

More Pilpul From the USCCB

All the hairsplitting pilpul in the world can't turn non-believing Ashkenzim, Sephardim, et al, into biblical, chosen people. The 2002 Reflections on Covenant and Mission document is groundless; a fraud based upon a fraud. This "clarification" is only another step in the dialectical process towards Benedict's "reconciliation between Christians and 'Jews'" where 'Jews' continue in their unbelief, deluded racial conceit and adherance to anti-biblical rabbinism, while Christians, by guilt and cajolery, are converted away from the Gospel and into the 'Noahide' fraud.

These so-called 'Jews' don't believe Jesus Christ, nor do they even believe Moses (John 5;41-47). Their unsubstantiated claim to genetic descent from the patriarchs affords them no special relationship with the Church. The bishops' suggestion to the contrary is anti-biblical, rabbinic nonsense.

USCCB Clarifies Key Points From Reflections On Covenant And Mission Statement (2002)

June 19, 2009

WASHINGTON DC (MetroCatholic) - A statement clarifying two points of Catholic teaching relative to the Jewish community was released June 18, at the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission was jointly issued by the Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. The statement can be found at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/covenant09.pdf.

“Our most important concern here is a pastoral one,” said Archbishop Wilton Gregory, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. “The 2002 document, Covenant and Mission, raised many questions among Catholics in the United States about how the Church relates to the Jewish community. Today’s statement helps to answer these questions clearly.”

Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice, stated that there were two key points at issue.

“The USCCB reaffirms what the Holy See has stated repeatedly: that while the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Jewish people, neither does she fail to witness to them her faith in Christ, nor to welcome them to share in that same faith whenever appropriate.” Bishop Lori said. He added that current debates over the question of how Catholics understand the covenant with Moses in relation to Christ were equally important. The covenant with Moses, that continues to be adhered to by Jews today, is fulfilled, Christians believe, in Jesus.

“As followers of Jesus, we see his covenant as fulfilling God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples, both now and at the end of time,” Bishop Lori said.

Archbishop Gregory commended the on-going work of scholars and pastors in Catholic-Jewish dialogue. “Pope John Paul II once referred to Jews as ‘our elder brothers and sisters in faith’”, he said. “By continuing our study together, we hope to deepen our understanding of Jesus and our relationship with each other in God’s redemption of the world.”

http://www.dfwcatholic.org/usccb-clarifies-key-points-from-reflections-on-covenant-and-mission-statement-20025004/.html

35 comments:

Prodinsocopus said...

“The USCCB reaffirms what the Holy See has stated repeatedly: that while the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Jewish people, neither does she fail to witness to them her faith in Christ, nor to welcome them to share in that same faith whenever appropriate.”

What a farce. Benedict XVI himself failed miserably to witness to Our Lord Jesus Christ when speaking directly to Judaic audiences in the Holy Land last month.

As for welcoming Judaics to share in the Catholic Faith "whenever appropriate" -- what does that mean??? When is it inappropriate to welcome unbelievers to share in the Catholic Faith?

What a shameful display.

Anonymous said...

Prod: I xeroed in on the same part and on the same phrase "whenever appropriate." With that phrase they undid the rest of the sentence.

Shameful display indeed! What else would you expect? This is what you want to be in "communion" with?

Prodinoscopus said...

Anon 5:45, you seem to know me from somewhere. CathInfo.com, perhaps?

Alas, no, I don't want to be in "communion" with Benedict XVI (communio is a phony concept), but I do recognize him as a valid successor of St. Peter. That fact doesn't make his judaizing habits any less distasteful.

John said...

MOST GALLING: "The covenant with Moses, that continues to be adhered to by Jews today..."

SULFUROUS EXCREMENT STRAIGHT FROM HELL!

bernadette said...

prodinoscopus said:
Alas, no, I don't want to be in "communion" with Benedict XVI (communio is a phony concept), but I do recognize him as a valid successor of St. Peter. That fact doesn't make his judaizing habits any less distasteful.

If you recognize Benedict XVI as the valid successor of St. Peter, then you must recognize the Novus Ordo as the ordinary form of the mass, and the Latin (tridentine mass) as the extraordinary form of the mass, right? There are then, two rites of the Catholic Mass...this is the point of confusion that needs explaining to me.

Prodinoscopus said...

Bernadette, no, I do not believe that I am bound in conscience to accept the phony "two rite" distinction put forth by Pope Benedict XVI. Recognizing him as a valid successor of St. Peter does not mean that I must agree with his errors or obey his unjust commands.

Anonymous said...

How many Jews did Archbishop Lefebvre convert?

Judaizing is no excuse for maintaining a schismatic mentality (i.e., for derogatorily referring to "non-traditional" Catholics as "Novus Ordo" Catholics). That mentality is mortally sinful.

Bernadette said...

Prodinoscopus, what you have said has always up until recently, made sense to me, yet, now with the sspx on the verge of coming to an agreement with Rome, I see that it would mean they are at least tacitly accepting Vatican II and the New Mass...you see, this is where my confusion begins, because I do not wish to be dragged along with the sspx in that acceptance. Thank you for your reply.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus,

There is only one Mass expressed in a multiplicity of Western and Eastern Rites. You might not be aware of this, but "for all" was used in some Eastern anaphoras. In fact, the Church has approved of numerous Consecration forms among the different Catholic Eastern Rites, and in doing so has never changed the substance of the sacrament. I refer you to the 1859 book by Fr. J.M. Neale “The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the Church of Malabar.” Here are just a few of the Eastern anaphoras approved by The Church detailed by Fr. Neale:

The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist: “This is the chalice of my blood of the new testament; take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the light of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to all that believe in him for ever and ever.”

The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist: “This is my blood of the New Testament; take, drink ye all of it for the remission of sins of you and of all the true faithful, and for eternal life.”

Did you also know that some Eastern rites have different liturgies for each day of the week? Hence the four Eucharistic prayers in the Novus Ordo Missae (the first of which is the Roman canon, the second and fourth of which are, indeed, of Eastern rite origin). The substance of Michael Davies' claim that the Roman rite was "destroyed" could easily be leveled at St. Pius V. Pius V "destroyed" many Western rites in the process of "fixing" one and mandating it for use upon the Latin rite Church. There is only ONE Mass, but many, many rites.

So if Paul VI wanted to replace the Western Rites with Eastern Rites as an ecumenical gesture -- or even promulgate new rites -- he had every right to do so. As Pius XII affirmed in Mediator Dei (#58): “the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

Consequently -- as a Catholic (if you are one) -- you are indeed bound to accept the usage of the New Rite and accept it as the ordinary expression of the Roman rite. It is you and the SSPX who are in error on a very simple matter of sacramental theology. The SSPX is not the remnant, and any morbid fantasizing to that effect is no different than the "we're the chosen ones" ghetto mentality of the jews. You're disobedience is not a badge of honor, but merely pretentious Jansenism.

Anonymous said...

Bernadette,

Do not let Prodinoscopus confuse or worry you. There are many rites of the Catholic Mass.

From Fr. Heribert Jone's Moral Theology: “Form of The Holy Eucharist. The essential words for the consecration of bread are: Hoc est corpus meum; and for consecrating the wine: Hic est calix sanguinis mei.” It is true that the priest is under a grave obligation to repeat the entire consecration formula, but that pertains, of course, to each priest and the particular form of their rite (Byzantine, Malabar, Syriac, etc.). The key word in the quotation, however, is “essential.” There exists a multiplicity of valid rites under the Catholic umbrella, all having different forms, which is why moral theology makes the affirmation it does. To declare otherwise would be to declare that all other rites of apostolic origin other than the Roman rite are invalid. The rites of The Catholic Church encompass far more than just the Western, or Roman, rite. Indeed there are some rites that are recognized by The Church as valid yet which vary widely from even “this is my body” and “this is the cup of my blood.” To state that a rite of Mass is not valid simply because it’s not the one laid down by either “Quo Primum” or “De Defectibus” at one point in time by one particular pontiff would be to declare many rites invalid which were indeed valid and in use for hundreds of years.

The Church has the power to change or create rites. In “Principles of Sacramental Theology” (Longman’s, 1956, pp. 414-417), Fr. Bernard Leeming (then Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Heythrop College) writes: “Principle 13: ‘An immediate institution by Christ of all the sacraments does not necessarily involve his specific determination of the matter and form of the rite of each sacrament.’” This is a summation of sacramental theology elucidated a page earlier when Leeming writes: “Institution in a generic manner may be explained thus: Christ explained the meaning of the sacrament, but left power with the Apostles or the Church to determine the elements in which this meaning may be embodied. Thus in Confirmation Christ settled the giving of the grace of the Holy Ghost for adult status in the Church, but left it to the Church whether this might be expressed by an anointing or by an imposition of hands; in Orders, Christ settled the office and the grace to fulfill it, but left it to the Church to settle which particular rite would express the meaning of the grant of such power. In the latter case, had St. John in the East chosen an imposition of hands, and St. Peter in Rome chosen a tendering of the priestly vestments and chalice, the sacrament would have been exactly the same, just as Baptism is the same whether administered in Aramaic, Latin, or any other language, which may express the same meaning although differing in their material form.”

Examples:

The "new" rite of episcopal consecration is, indeed, the Rite of Hippolytus of which the Antiochene Church owes its Episcopal heritage. To say it's invalid is to throw out a large portion of the history of the Eastern Church.

The "new" rite of confirmation is “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and is a modification of the Eastern Orthodox/Byzantine form, “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Do not believe all the SSPX/sedevacantist propaganda. Their apologetic materials have become a recursively schismatic catechism that confirm the faithful in their error. When Fr. Schmidberger fraternally corrected Archbishop Lefebvre, whispering into Lefebvre's ear that the "new" rites were Eastern rites, Lefebvre never referred to them as "bastard rites" again. He knew he was wrong and kept his mouth shut from that point on. Remarkable how an Archbishop could be so in error about a simple matter of sacramental research. What else was he wrong about?

Anonymous said...

What schismatic mentality? Calling non-traditional Catholics as Novus Ordo Catholics? How is that schismatic? Those who believe Vatican II to be the starting point of the Church, THEY ARE SCHISMATIC! The SSPX is not in schism, whatever else you or other people might say!

Anonymous said...

And how do you know it's derogatory? Do not many Catholics still think the Novus Ordo is the only way to have the Mass?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:32: Who are you to bind anyone's conscience?

Prod: I believe you are wrong. You are bound to give mental assent to the Pope even if you personally disagree. Read the Vatican One documents. You see, this is the problem. As a Catholic born well before Vatican II and "trained" by the truly good Sisters in the Faith, it is not possible for me to deny what I was once taught and simply put it down as the "evolution of doctrine" or"new meanings to old truths."

Delphina

Prodinoscopus said...

Bernadette, don't listen to the sweet nothings that clever historians and subtle theologians whisper in your ear. If your spirit is repelled by the Novus Ordo, it is for good reason. I attend the Novus Ordo out of necessity, and I close my eyes and ears to EVERYTHING except the words of consecration ... and even there I mentally resist "for all" at the confection of the Precious Blood.

I'm not affiliated with the SSPX, yet I think that you should trust Bishop Fellay. I'm sure that he would tell me that I ought to flee the Novus Ordo. That's ok, he's probably right, it's just not so easy. If you are with the SSPX, what is the alternative? Sedevacantism? God forbid. FSSP? I don't think that your principles would allow it. Exile with the likes of me in Novus Ordo land? Only if you have no other choice.

Do you see Bishop Williamson jumping the SSPX ship? That should be a good clue that you're ok to put your trust in Bishop Fellay.

Pray for me, and I will pray for you. God bless!

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 6-22-09 @ 11:09

You are parroting vituperative Lefebvrist sentiment. No Catholic believes The Church began with Vatican 2. The documents of Vatican 2 are rich in doctrine and frequently cite all of the previous councils of The Church. To insist The Church erred or is wrong is engaging in the same private judgement that led the Old Catholics on their doomed schismatic trajectory after Vatican I. The Old Catholics felt that papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I was an innovation the same way sedevacantists and Lefebvrists erroneously feel Dignitatis Humanae is an innovation. If the SSPX is not in schism, then the SSPX must immediately cease hearing confessions without jurisdiction, and cease all ordinations and confirmations unless they receive permission from their respective local ordinaries. As far as confession is concerned, Canon Law (both the 1917 and 1983 codes) requires that a priest be given permission by the local ordinary to hear confessions. In the 1983 code it's Canon 969 §1: “Only the local Ordinary is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful.” The Mystical Body of Christ is an organic reality; it follows that members of a body cannot function without a head from which all power and authority derives. The canonical requirement for juridical permission as a condition for the validity of confession has its seeds in scripture: “And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent?” (St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 10, verses 14-15). Bishop Tissier de Mallerais stretches and contorts his own private judgement when it comes to epikeia. The notion of “ecclesia supplet” - namely that the Church supplies jurisdiction in an emergency situation - is reserved for cases of dire emergency unforeseen by a lawmaker. For example, a state of emergency exists if a plague wipes out all of the Bishops and the surviving priests, utilizing the power the Church supplies, must then consecrate other priests Bishops; or a defrocked priest who has no faculties is supplied jurisdiction to validly hear the confession of a man on the verge of death. However, if a Catholic has recourse to a local parish priest who possesses jurisdiction to hear a confession, said Catholic can't claim a state of emergency because he doesn't like the local liturgy. The novus ordo missae in the vernacular, versus populem worship (i.e., Mass facing the people), women without mantillas (the requirement for which was eliminated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law), communion-in-the-hand (an indult) - taken individually or collectively - are not a state of emergency. To say that they are makes Bishop de Mallerais sound like a dilettante and actually does a grave disservice to the law by diminishing it's importance through erroneous application.

Bernadette said...

No, I am not going to be taken into this 'many rites of the church/Eastern rites' nonsense. I am a Roman Catholic and follow the Roman Rite...Amen. All of this balderdash about Eastern rites is fine if you are an Eastern rite Catholic, but I and many here are Roman Rite...I am addressing and dealing with that and that alone. I have no interest in going to an Eastern Liturgy, the Roman Rite is the predominant Rite of the Catholic Church, like it or not.
It is utterly ridiculous to try to confuse the issue at hand. Please keep this in mind:

The bull, Quo Primum (1570), was the decree by which Pope St Pius V, in faithful adherence to the Council of Trent, codified the immemorial Roman rite with the intention that it should remain unchanged in perpetuity. By the same decree he conferred on all priests a perpetual indult to use the Roman Missal freely and lawfully.

An important point about Quo Primum was not its nature as a papal bull (subsequent popes were not legally bound by the disciplinary measures of their predecessors), but its principal subject-matter, the Roman Mass based on Apostolic Tradition which all popes from then until recent times considered inviolable and, with regard at least to the Ordinary of the Mass, preserved absolutely unchanged. The question, therefore, is not a legal but a moral one: whether it was right to disregard the solemn decree which was an act of the Council of Trent, break with the living tradition of the Church and introduce a New Order of Mass. The effect of Missale Romanum (1969) on the legal status of Quo Primum was one of derogation, i.e. it was modified to include the New Mass, but Pius V's decree and the perpetual indult it contained have never been abrogated in the canonical sense of the term.

Anonymous said...

Delphina,

You should read Cardinal Henry Newman's famous essay "On the Development of Christian Doctrine." In it you will find the criteria for discerning valid development of doctrine from innovation. Dignitatis Humanae satisfies all the criteria and is, indeed, a valid development of doctrine. I also refer you to the article "Is Dignitatis Humanae a Case of Authentic Doctrinal Development?" by Ian Turnbull Ker in Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture (Vol. 11, #2, Spring 2008) for a further exploration of the topic and which solidly answers its title in the affirmative. However, Bishop De Smedt's footnote #5 to Dignitatis Humanae makes it explicitly clear: "Neither the Declaration [on Religious Liberty] nor the American Constitution affirms that a man has a right to believe what is false or to do what is wrong. This would be moral nonsense. Neither error or evil can be the object of a right, only what is true and good. It is, however, true and good that a man should enjoy freedom from coercion in matters religious."

Really, Delphina, as you indicated per Vatican I you owe obedience to the Second Vatican Council's teachings. Any emotional/psychological/intellectual prejudice you have must take a backseat to your assent. However, there is nothing remotely heretical in any of the conciliar decress.

Anonymous said...

Bernadette,

This is no Eastern rite "nonsense." I am not confusing the issue. It simply doesn't take much to topple the Lefebvrist house of cards. The successor of Peter has the right to promulgate and replace any rite. You are baptized in the Roman rite and subect to its lawgiver. The Roman rite itself changed many, many times over the course of centuries before Trent. Are you lamenting the prayers for the Roman Emperor that were jettisoned 1500 years ago? The "Mass of All Time" is "This is my body. This is (the Chalice of) My Blood." The Tridentine Rite is merely one expression of The Mass. The point is if the Supreme Pontiff wants to replace the Roman rite with an Eastern Rite variant he can do so. Your objections (which have no basis other than emotional posturing and perhaps nostalgia) are no different than 7th Day Adventists who try to tell the Church what it can and cannot do. Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ, has been generous, however Paul VI, did, indeed, outlaw the Tridentine Rite. It is not true that St. Pius V so fixed the rite of the Mass as to remove from his successors the power or authority to make changes. Such a law would have been an act exceeding his own powers as pope. Nor does the term "in perpetuity" mean in legal terms what it seems to: the law was to continue as law even after the death of the lawgiver, but like all laws that are not expressions of infallible teaching, are revoked by a contrary law coming from a competent authority. Canon 22 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is explicit on this point: "The more recent law made by the competent authority abolishes a former law, if the new law explicitly says so, or if it is directly contrary to the old law, or if it takes up and makes provision for the entire subject matter of the former law." The words of the Apostolic Constitution introducing the new missal, Missale Romanum, clearly indicate that the earlier missal had been entirely replaced by that of 1969. Repeated instructions and directives of the Congregation for Divine Worship had confirmed that that was the sense of the law. Additionally, the provision of the canon that even without such an explicit revocation a law is repealed if in a new law the competent legislator makes provision for the entire subject matter of the former law. The Holy See produced a missal, lectionary, etc. that covered the entire field of the sixteenth century missal. Even if no explicit revocation had been made, that alone would be enough to repeal the liturgical legislation of Quo Primum, and hence withdraw from use the Tridentine liturgical prescriptions.

Prodinoscopus,

You mentally resist the "for all" during the consecration of the precious blood? If so, you've been trained very well. And lies repeated often enough have become reality. As I indicated in the reference cited above, "for all" was used in the vernacular translations of certain valid Eastern Rite anaphoras (and, by the way, the Council of Florence affirmed the validity of Eastern rites). It is a doctrine condemned by the Church to say that Our Lord died only for some and not for all men; cfr. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1952, nos, 160, 3`8, 480, 794,5 (Council of Trent on Justification), and also several scripture statements declaring same.

Prodinoscopus said...

If the SSPX is not in schism, then the SSPX must immediately cease hearing confessions without jurisdiction, and cease all ordinations and confirmations unless they receive permission from their respective local ordinaries.

Well, aren't you something, anon! I noticed that the Pope did not tell the SSPX that they must cease all ordinations and confirmations, although the Vatican Press Office reiterated Rome's official position that the ordinations are illicit. We have Bishop Fellay's word that Rome is actually favorable toward the ordinations. Perhaps you would like to accuse Bishop Fellay of telling lies? Perhaps you should instruct the Pope in how best to deal with the Lefebvrists. Or maybe you should listen to the Pope's own words toward the end of his letter to the Bishops explaining his reasons for lifting the excommunications:

At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate.

Regarding "for all" versus "for many", I guess that you'll be condemning the Pope himself for heresy, since he has ordered that the next translation of the Roman Missal (Ordinary Form) should use the literal rendering of "pro multis" as "for many".

I plug my ears at "for all" because that translation was chosen to reinforce the heretical notion of universal salvation that runs rampant through the Church today.

Anonymous said...

Before I put my complete trust in Bishop Bernard Fellay, I'll put it in Pope Benedict XVI!!

ANON 8:18

I have no use for John Cardinal Henry Newman. Thanks for the lead though. Who is this "Turnbull Ker"? And where is this Bishop's footnote to "DH"?

"Any emotional/psychological/intellectual prejudice..." I like that one! I call it the Roman Catholic Faith as taught and believed by all (well, almost all) prior to the windows being opened.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

All the anonymouses attacking us "Lefebvrites" are just so full of hot air. They dare to arrogate to themselves the right to take judgment on the SSPX and their supporters, despite several officials, as Cardinal Hoyos, saying the SSPX is not in schism (despite not being in "full communion). I think it is correct (and not derogatory) to call Novus Ordo Catholics, those who believe the Novus Ordo to be a legitimate development of the Mass!

All those defending the change of the words of Consecration in the Novus Ordo, tell me this: has there ever been a change before this? Why the change? If the words are the same, WHY CHANGE THEM?! Unnecessary changes, most of the time, are DANGEROUS!

And for that other person defending DH, I find Michael Davies' book to be an excellent refutation of what you claim, using that so-called evidence of that article.

And as for the other accusations, they have been ably refuted time and time again, despite you bringing it up again and again! I'm done here. You may attack us again of schism, etc., but only God knows what we really. I'll keep you and all others in my prayers!

Bernadette said...

Anonymous do you always make things up to suit your own way of thinking? "Codified" and "in perpetuity", mean just that. You need to stop reading the likes of Jimmy Akin, get yourself a few books on the SSPX, and the arguments from the standpoint of tradition, and start reading...but please, to make educated arguments, you really need to know all of the facts and not just the one that the modernists are telling you. I am done here to, I don't want to argue with people that haven't a clue, I've done that for too long now already...its up to the ignorant to educate themselves.

Anonymous said...

The Jewish communities in the holy land and elsewhere have had an unbroken presence since biblical times, therefore the claim of patriarchal descent seems quite non-controversial. If the Jews don't descend from the patriarchs, then Jesus is not of the Davidic line, making all of Christianity a farce.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (June 26, 2009 1:03 PM), you know not what you're talking about. Most of the "Jews" in Israel only came there in the 1900s to later. No one denies about Jews living in the Holy Land before then. They are denying that most of the "Jews" are those whose ancestors came from the Holy Land, but that they are from foreign countries!

Anonymous said...

The dual charisms of indefectibility and infallibility belong to the Bishop of Rome and the See of Rome expressed through the Church's Teaching Authority, The Magisterium. That is de Fide. Archbishops Lefebvre and Thuc, Michael Davies, Patrick Henry Omlor, Williamson, Fellay, de Gallaretta, de Mallerais etc. (and all the other hoodwinkers) do not possess those charisms. They were promised to Peter and his Successors.

Both "for many" and "for all" are valid for the consecration of the wine. Neither are in error. To even debate the topic is rabbinic.

I know it's distressing seeing all those pagans, atheists, and non-Catholics in our local grocery stores, but hiding your head in the sand -- or in a cloud of incense -- will not change reality. The world did not collapse with Vatican 2. To effectively assert that it did one would have to go back in time and keep everything else the same: demographics, rapid global travel (dismantling geopolitical borders), mass communications (all forms), suburban/urban migratory patterns, technological developments (all disciplines), etc.

A few minor points:

Bishop de Smedt's footnote can be found in the Abbott edition of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (published in the sixties; used paperback copies are plentiful).

The epiclesis in the Tridentine Rite/'62 Missal is narrative (passive) and not invocatory, whereas the epiclesis in the Novus Ordo Missae is invocatory (active).

The blessing to make Holy Water in the '62 Rituale Romanum included an exorcism of the water. This was deleted in the new rite and for good reason -- to suggest that any element is inherently possessed by the devil borders on gnostic error (i.e., that the material world is evil).

Peter and his successors were given the power to bind and to loose and given the power to forgive sins -- yet the successors of Peter can't make changes to the liturgy? Talk about a pharisaical attitude!

Nobody could be as Modernist as Archbishop Lefebvre -- the most (in)famous cafeteria Catholic who, like Charles Curran and Hans Kung, seletively picked and chose what he wanted to obey and adhere to.

Why even have confessions at the SSPX? If the old rites were somehow superior (or gave more grace) than no one should fall into sin, right?

Since you all believe The Church has erred you've effectively called Christ a liar. Why bother being a Catholic?

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (June 26, 2009 3:17 PM),
The fact that Emperor Hadrian forcefully exiled all openly-practicing Jews from living in the Holy Land and sent them into exile is very well documented in Roman Law. This only strengthens my earlier point that these communities outside the land proper are of Biblical origin, awaiting the ingathering that manifested itself in the 20th century. Negating their Judaism is therefore by definition the same as negating Christ, their contemporary.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:20

Young man, you are quite judgmental for a vatican two-er. I thought you people were open, accepting, compassionate, luving, prone to dialogue when you failed to comprehend your opponent's position, embracing all other "faith traditions" etc. etc.

I'm not sure if your rant is directed at me precisely or just all here in general, but for your information, I am neither a sedevavantist nor an SSPX-er. No, I attend the local crazy parish where we were told on Ascension Sunday that Our Lord ascended into Heaven on Easter evening and did not stay here for forty days. Perhaps he was rght; after all, you moderns seem to have really gotten the hang of the Faith after two thousand years. I mean, imagine that - the old rite blessing of holy water gnostic! Try telling that to an exorcist I know.

I used to get angry at people like you; now I just pity you. You are no better than those you go off on and you don't even realize it.

Anonymous said...

More hot air from another anonymous attacking Archbishop Lefebvre. You say he's a "cafeteria Catholic" but you cannot truly say what doctrines he has denied that make him not Catholic. And so we still see laity arrogating to themselves the authority to judge, contrary to Canon Law. The SSPX is NOT IN SCHISM! Its founder IS NOT A CAFETERIA CATHOLIC! Vatican II does not involve infallibility!

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (June 26, 2009 3:17 PM),
The fact that Emperor Hadrian forcefully exiled all openly-practicing Jews from living in the Holy Land and sent them into exile is very well documented in Roman Law. This only strengthens my earlier point that these communities outside the land proper are of Biblical origin, awaiting the ingathering that manifested itself in the 20th century. Negating their Judaism is therefore by definition the same as negating Christ, their contemporary.


That fact doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion. In fact, if you read history, you'll see that most of the Jews scattered decided to stay in their lands, and that the so-called Jews come from countries NOT OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, LIKE RUSSIA, etc. If anything, the Jews in the West, the Sephardic Jews, are the Biblical descendants, NOT THE ASHKENAZIM!

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (June 27, 2009):
Scattered Jews were still scattered, and Russian Jews are still Jews. Jewish communities moved to Slavic and Turkic countries when those countries provided either religious tolerance or economic incentives to move. This has zero impact on who they are as Jews. The Sefardim/Ashkenazi distinction is meaningless insofar as it is essentially defined by who fell on which side of the Ottoman/European battle-line during the middle ages. Their ancestry was always identical, as decisively proven multiple times by rigorous, high-profile genetic studies:

Y chromosomes of Jewish priests.
Skorecki et a;.
Nature. 1997 Jan 2;385(6611):32.

The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East.
Nebel et al.
Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Nov;69(5):1095-112.

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
Hammer et al.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74.

Maurice Pinay said...

anonymous 6:49 PM writes: "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests.
Skorecki et a;.
Nature. 1997 Jan 2;385(6611):32.

The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East.
Nebel et al.
Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Nov;69(5):1095-112.

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
Hammer et al.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74."


*****

DNA tests can't prove Israelite blood lineage unless Jacob's DNA is available for comparison, which is not the case. The same goes for for DNA claims to Cohenim lineage--unless DNA from Aaron is available for comparison, DNA testing is useless.

But even if Jacob and Aaron's DNA were available for comparison and some people living today could prove that they were their blood descendants, in itself, that claim would be of no consequence.

Not all who are blood descendants of Jacob are Israel (Romans 9;6). It is quite possible for a blood descendant of Abraham to have the Devil as his spiritual father (John 8). God can raise up stones to be Israel (Matthew 3;9). A Roman soldier of pagan background can have greater faith than any of the blood descendants of Jacob (Luke 7;9).

One becomes a child of God, true Israel, not by blood descent, but by faith. Those who have true faith in Jesus Christ are the heirs of the promises made to Abraham (Galatians 3;8-9). They are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, the people of God (1 Peter 2;9-10). They are the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15-16).

There is no "racial" distinction among the people of God; true Israel. There is neither Jew nor Greek. All are one in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3;26-29).

Maurice Pinay said...

Anonymous 1:13 AM writes: "... these [Judaic] communities outside the [Holy] land proper are of Biblical origin, awaiting the ingathering that manifested itself in the 20th century."

***

What a remarkable profession of faith. Unfortunately, faith in the alleged biblical origin of today's alleged 'Jews' will not save you.


Anonymous 1:13 AM writes:"Negating their Judaism is therefore by definition the same as negating Christ, their contemporary."

***

On the contrary.

Negating Jesus Christ by definition negates the Bible (John 5;41-47). These so-called 'Jews' who deny Jesus Christ have no claim to the Bible whatever.

Anonymous said...

Maurice, you're absolutely right about DNA being unable to prove descent from Jacob himself. However the previous poster regarded the artificial distinction between Jews in the immediate area of the Roman exile and those who went as far as Europe as proof enough that the latter were of different origin. That's exactly what the DNA proves wrong.

My point is that historically these are the Jews that blood-frenzied mobs incited by Czars and cossacks killed with the excuse that these were "Christ-killers". I guess I just find it odd that when it's fashionable to kill these Jews on the basis of their being Christ's contemporaries, they're Christ's contemporaries, and when it's fashionable to kill these Jews by claiming that they're somehow non-Biblical, then suddenly they're no longer Christ's contemporaries.

And while I agree that faith in the existence of the Bible's Jews is not alone a guaranteer of salvation, I cannot for the life of me understand why denying it, and thereby promulgating such an untenable lie, does guarantee you that salvation.

HallnOates said...

Both "for many" and "for all" are valid for the consecration of the wine. Neither are in error. To even debate the topic is rabbinic.


This is an ignorant statement which implies that the Catechism of Council of Trent is rabbinic:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

Maurice Pinay said...

Anonymous 10:48 AM writes: "Maurice, you're absolutely right about DNA being unable to prove descent from Jacob himself. However the previous poster regarded the artificial distinction between Jews in the immediate area of the Roman exile and those who went as far as Europe as proof enough that the latter were of different origin. That's exactly what the DNA proves wrong.

***

To say that DNA testing proves much of anything in the area of ancient ancestry is a stretch to be sure. "Scientific evidence" should always be viewed with skepticism where powerful agendas are concerned.

Anonymous 10:48 AM writes: "My point is that historically these are the Jews that blood-frenzied mobs incited by Czars and cossacks killed with the excuse that these were "Christ-killers". I guess I just find it odd that when it's fashionable to kill these Jews on the basis of their being Christ's contemporaries, they're Christ's contemporaries, and when it's fashionable to kill these Jews by claiming that they're somehow non-Biblical, then suddenly they're no longer Christ's contemporaries."

***

Whatever violence that did actually happen against the Judaic Khazars of Russia in the early 20th century was triggered by the subversive activity of many from that population more so than any belief that they were genetic "Christ Killers." I am opposed to mob violence, and so am I opposed to blood libel against the Russians.


Anonymous 10:48 AM writes: "And while I agree that faith in the existence of the Bible's Jews is not alone a guaranteer of salvation, I cannot for the life of me understand why denying it, and thereby promulgating such an untenable lie, does guarantee you that salvation."

***

You're suggesting that I'm lying, but I'm denying outrageous, unsubstantiated claims. I dispute that non-believing 'Jews' are spiritual Israel. That's a simple profession of Jesus' teaching.

I also dispute the claim that today's 'Jews' are even genetic descendants of Jacob/Israel because no evidence to support such a claim exists.

Further, I have never said that denial of Judaic DNA claims guarantees salvation as you suggest, but I do say that much spiritual and ideological misdirection stems from such beliefs. I believe that such beliefs, today more than ever, are a threat to salvation--not only to Christians but also to the so-called 'Jews' themselves. Their alleged race can't save them. To say otherwise is the real lie.