Replies

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But to say that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked in the normal manner of speech is contrary to the Faith, as can be clearly seen from scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church.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

"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.

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.

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.

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..."