A Keel-haul of the Faith

Seattle Catholic ^ | 8/16/02 | Br. Alexis Bugnolo

[narses]

Ping

[NYer]

This is an excellent post for today. In this Sunday's Gospel:

Mt 15:21-28
At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out,
"Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!
My daughter is tormented by a demon."
But Jesus did not say a word in answer to her.
Jesus' disciples came and asked him,
"Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us."
He said in reply,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But the woman came and did Jesus homage, saying, "Lord, help me."
He said in reply,
"It is not right to take the food of the children
and throw it to the dogs."
She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps
that fall from the table of their masters."
Then Jesus said to her in reply,
"O woman, great is your faith!
Let it be done for you as you wish."
And the woman's daughter was healed from that hour.

As I recall, even the early church fathers believed that they were to bring the "good news" only to the Jews, to whom the Messiah had been promised.

Chalk up one more deplorable document from the USCCB this year.

[Polycarp]

These reports concerning the document are not exaggerations, however scandalous they may appear to the reader; for the argument advanced in "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" (hereafter ROCM), while attempting an over-haul the faith has in fact keel-hauled it; it eviscerates the truth of the Catholic Faith and the claims of Christ Jesus to be the Messiah by twisting the plain sense of scripture and by advancing concepts wholly at odds with the teaching of Christ and His Church.

Secondly, ROCM refers to a statement made by Pope John Paul II, ("Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany," November 17,1980), of which it quotes only one passage, "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." Without recourse to the document, it is not clear what the Pope intended by this statement.

But to say that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked in the normal manner of speech is contrary to the Faith, as can be clearly seen from scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church.

All good points here.

It is clear, therefore, that the Pope to ingratiate himself with the Jews has publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith, and that therefore all Catholics are bound not to accept this error; and indeed to reject it completely..

This is why I will never join the extreme traditionalists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please but it seems to me that in one breath, this author notes JPII has been taken out of context, then in the next he uses the same text taken out of context as proof that the Pope has committed heresy (publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith) and that Catholics should reject this "error."

And folks here say I need to get off the fence and join such nonsense as this, typical of the rush of some "traditionalists" to condemn the words and actions of our Pope?

It is the bitterness and bile and blatant errors of "traditionalists" that keeps me firmly in the post-conciliar conservative Catholic camp. I might be an Indult Latin Mass conservative Catholic (whenever possible, which is not often enough) but I will never be the kind of traditionalist Catholic exemplified by this article. It simply goes too far when it states the Pope has committed heresy, i.e., "publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith."

[Theresa]

"Secondly, ROCM refers to a statement made by Pope John Paul II, ("Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany," November 17,1980), of which it quotes only one passage, "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." Without recourse to the document, it is not clear what the Pope intended by this statement."

IMHO, full respect to my beloved Holy Father, the Pope has not been clear and that is a problem. The Vatican IMHO has beating around the bush ever since Vatican II about the status of the Jews. To the Jews they beat around the bush, but to us insiders the bottom line with regard to the status of the Jews is that they are saved by "invincible ignorance." Which of course the Jews can't abide. Who can blame them? To say that God's beloved are invincibly ignorant does not seem at all to be consistent with thier dignity and calling before God. And such nomenclature does not do much to quell anti-Semitism. In fact it can be taken to fuel it. This statement by the bishops, I think is an attempt to come to a decision. It is theological brinksmaship because that is what it takes to get anywhere. Steady your nerves people. Everything will work out fine in the end.

And in the meantime, read the Jews side of the story. It's right there in the document. The story of salvation not all about US and what WE think.

[RobbyS]

In what way are they different from the Orthodox, who claim that the popes were correct up to a certain point in time at whuich they deviated from the truth? With regard to the main point, I ask: How was Jerusalem's rejection of the Messiah fundamentally different from its rejection of the Prophets? God is faithful even when His people are not.

[drstevej]

John 8:24 Jesus tells the Jewish leaders, "Unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins." There were many prophets. ONE Messiah!

[RobbyS]

And this Lord has revoked the promises He made to Israel? Circumcision and keeping the Sabbath may not save them, but He died that they might live.

[Catholicguy]

I want to register my complaint about posting from websites that oppose the Pope. I don't see how posting from their sites in any way advances the Unity of Worship, Doctrine, Authority of the Catholic Church. There exist innumerable sites in union with Rome that cover the same matter that these schismatic websites do, but they do it with a CATHOLIC, not a schismatic, weltanschauung.

Seattle Catholic is infamous as a site that rejects the Bonds of Unity necessary to be Catholic. Br. Alex has written other pieces for them prior to this latest post. I wonder if anyone knows the status of Br. Alex in regards his relationship to the Catholic Church?

[narses]

Noted. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post an "Index" of sites that you feel "oppose the Pope". If the evidence you post with that list is compelling, I will cease posting from those sites.

Until then, may I renew my suggestion that you simply ignore my posts. I deleted you from my ping list as I will delete anyone who dislikes what I post or simply wants off.

[Catholicguy]

An "Index" is a good idea. Thank you. I suggest we put Seattle Catholic on that "Index." Here is a link to one of their editorials to indicate they are outside the Bonds of Unity of Worship, Doctrine, Authority.



http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20010907_Battle_Over_Liturgiam_Authenticam.html

[Catholicguy]

Seattle Catholic is just for starters.

I propose "The Remnant" for inclusion on the "Index" because its editor, Mr. Matt,is an infamous signer/promoter of the "We resist you to the face" Document that breaks the Bond of Authority.

I propose "Catholic Family News" for inclusion on the "Index" because its editor John Vennari is an infamous signer/promoter of the "We resist you to the face" Document that breaks the Bond of Authority.

I propose "The Angelus" for inclusion on the "Index" because it is the mouthpiece of the schismatic SSPX.

The material these STOP (Sites That Oppose Pope) sites deal with is also covered/addressed/analysed by GO (Guaranteed Orthodoxy)sites . I don't think it argueable that it is more helpful to build up the Body of Christ by posting from sites in union with the Pope vs posting from sites that oppose the Pope.

[Catholicguy]

Here is a link to a list that we might consult in building the "Index. " I would appreciate hearing your suggestions of sites that ought to be included on the "Index."


http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/weave2.htm

[cebadams]

BTTT

[ultima ratio]

But you are fighting the wrong people. Your quarrel is not with traditionalists--who merely oppose what has not been handed-down, who oppose what is obviously novel and contrary to what has always been understood and taught. No, your quarrel is with those who teach these new doctrines. When has the Catholic Church ever taught that the Jews do right to await their messiah--when it is clearly understood by all that they are waiting for someone who is other than the Jesus whom they have already rejected?

This is a novel doctrine--and Vatican I warned that "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter so that they might disclose a new doctrine" but only to protect what they have received. (canon 3.) The Pope also took an oath to protect Traditional teachings and not to alter them in any way. Do you seriously believe he has kept this oath?

You are in the position of blaming those who simply point out what is obvious: that the chain of novelties that has poured out of Rome since Vatican II is unprecedented--and destructive of the faith as well as past magisterial teachings. This is cause for alarm--not a time to rally around the Pope who engineers radical innovations in the name of a minor council. Vatican II is being belatedly invoked to legitimize a modernist revolution within the Church.

[ultima ratio]

Baloney. You want to have it all your way and censor Catholic opposition to neo-Catholicism. It is another ploy to silence the Church that had existed for two thousand years--before NewChurch reared its ugly head in 1963. It is not traditionalists who divide the Church--it is the modernists who reject the past and its traditional teachings. Did they suppose they might do this without meeting enormous resistance from the faithful? At first the changes were minor--but now they are coming fast and furious and amount to a new religion. One wouldn't feel such pain and anguish if these changes were fruitful in some way. But we have seen the debacle that has followed, not to speak of systemic corruption at the very top, among bishops and cardinals, with the full knowledge of the Vatican. Why should good Catholics be expected to go along? Thank goodness for a newspaper site like Seattle Catholic. com that publishes the TRUTH, instead of the routine disinformation pouring out of Rome and the local dioceses.

[Polycarp]

When has the Catholic Church ever taught that the Jews do right to await their messiah

I'm actually reading the Pontifical document very carefully, very slowly. So far I've read over half of it, and no where does this document say that the Jews do right to await their messiah, so far.

I think we all need to ignore the media coverage and actually debate the document itself before we accuse Ratzinger of introducing a novel doctrine, right?

[Catholicguy]

7. Remember the comment made by Bro. Alexis Bugnolo relative to my "An Opinion..." file? He said:

"Yes, we should give the Pope every benefit of the doubt. We would give our own natural father as much; why not our spiritual father?"

"Will the real Bro. Alexis, please stand-up..."

[Polycarp]

This is a novel doctrine

Let me clarify:

Yes, I agree that the American USCCB document is heretical, absolutely.

But I'm currently carefully reading the Pontifical Biblical Commission document signed off by Ratzinger.

The Vatican document does NOT say its time to stop evangelizing the Jews.

The Vatican document (from what I have stidied so far, over half the document) does NOT say Jews wait for their messiah is not in vain.

To clarify then...

Yes, this American document is heretical.

No, the Vatican document is not heretical.

[Catholicguy]

What do you think of this article that you posted on 8/18 11:40 p.m?? Do you agree with it? Does it speak for you; is that why you posted it? Is there anything in the post with which you do disagree?

As Polycarp has noted (on 8/18 1:22 p.m.), the author of the article that you selected to post, essentially labels the Pope a heretic. Does your silence indicate agreement? I assume it does because you do not publicly respond to Polycarp's response.

Since Polycarp's observation, you haven't repudiated Bro Alexis' scandalous charge. You have had nearly 24 hours to do so; yet, the only remarks you make are about my complaint about posting from sites not in union with the Pope.

Therefore, I have to conclude you agree with Bro. Alexis.