Replies

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.

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But to say that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked in the normal manner of speech is contrary to the Faith, as can be clearly seen from scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church.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

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?

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.

Sunday's Epistle (Novus Ordo) was quite instructive:

Reading II
Rom 11:13-15, 29-32

Brothers and sisters:
I am speaking to you Gentiles.
Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles,
I glory in my ministry in order to make my race jealous
and thus save some of them.
For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world,
what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Just as you once disobeyed God
but have now received mercy because of their disobedience,
so they have now disobeyed in order that,
by virtue of the mercy shown to you,
they too may now receive mercy.
For God delivered all to disobedience,
that he might have mercy upon all.

St. Paul seems to be of the opinion that the Jews' rejection of the Gospel will cause them not to be saved; but that those who become jealous of the Gentiles' salvation and accept the Gospel will be saved, and raised from the dead.

Likewise, as once the Jews were obedient to God while the Gentiles were disobedient, now the roles have reversed, and the Jews are disobedient while the Gentiles are obedient; which St. Paul takes as a sign of God's mercy toward all.