Two more fascinating posts. Blast it, Pertinacious Papist! How will I EVER get any real work done??? 
Ah--so the Reporter is still capable of saying Deus lo volt!
How nice for them.
Not to worry, Dave. At least we shan't be having to contend with pathologically salacious clerical remarks about underwear sniffing, or Cistercian monks practicing 'spiritual fellation' upon the divine prepuce, or about the glories of sodomy for a while. Things should quiet down. Just watch.
That sounds like a blessing. Many thanks!
If the NCR dislikes it, surely it must be good!
Maybe NCR are in self-contradiction, but ask yourself why the Lefevbites want freedom to dissent on these issues.
As I wrote in my latest weblog offering, The Decline of the Neocaths:
There was always a sympathy between the young neocath fogeys and the older traditionalists in the spirit of Evelyn Waugh, Dietrich von Hildebrand, the older Jacques Maritain. But now we increasingly see the neocaths reaching out to the lunatic fringe, finding their best friends in the Lefebvrite movement and other such disgruntled groups. See for example: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com. They are currently indignant that the Lefevrites may be refused the "right to dissent" from Vatican II on ecumenism and religious freedom that they specify as a condition of their reconciliation with Rome ( http://www.newoxfordreview.org/n...tes-intolerant;
lauded at http://pblosser.blogspot.com, July 20, 2006); perhaps they do not realize that one of the motives of asking for that right to dissent is a visceral anti-Semitism (http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2005/08/
guess-anti-semite.html).
"The objections the Reporter has to the SSPX — opposition to religious liberty, ecumenism, and interfaith relations — have to do with policies, not doctrines.
"Cardinal Ratzinger also said: "Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone.... To use the words of Pope Paul VI, [Vatican II] seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored.... The net result therefore seems to be negative" (L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 24, 1984)."
DISCOURAGEMENT AND BOREDOM were not the work of Vatican II but of the Vatican's refusal to enact it.
It seems NCR is no more than a lobby . It does not aim to work for the Church's construction and developpemnt in the whole faithfulness to Tradition but rather to transform the Church in its own (very) limited views and understanding...
Too often do we find such way of being catholic, which is rather a way for catholicism to become like themselves.
[quote]
"The objections the Reporter has to the SSPX — opposition to religious liberty, ecumenism, and interfaith relations — have to do with policies, not doctrines.
"Cardinal Ratzinger also said: "Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone.... To use the words of Pope Paul VI, [Vatican II] seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored.... The net result therefore seems to be negative" (L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 24, 1984)."
DISCOURAGEMENT AND BOREDOM were not the work of Vatican II but of the Vatican's refusal to enact it.
[/quote]
Ho, Ho Ho and Ho again.
Thank God for the SSPX
From "Spirit"'s latest weblog offering:
'Above all what marks decline is the increasing shrillness and extremism of the neocath voices, and their failure to attract any interest unless they indulge in such rhetoric. Along with this goes a failure to develop their thinking, which remains caught in the rut of their favorite obsessions.'
Look in the mirror, "Spirit". Look in the mirror.
All the same, folks, he's right about the anti-Semitism. The radtrad. folk I mix with on occasion are deeply infected by it. As a Jew by birth and upbringing (though now, Deo gratias, Catholic), I find it deeply disturbing to be told, quite seriously, that Vatican II was actually controlled by Jews and Freemasons, and it's the Jews and Freemasons who are behind (for instance) the current environmental movement.
Well, I've read it with my own eyes:
http://www.sspxafrica.com/
docume..._Williamson.htm
This letter contains some very hateful and violent language.
I hope that any reconciliation with SPPX will involve a purging of such un-Godliness. Otherwise, I find it quite disturbing.
This line is really amazing:
'We think of those well-intentioned souls in Waco, TX, who seven years ago took guns and perished by flame-throwers.'
Well-intentioned souls??? Wacked out looney birds following zombie-like a messianic heretic/apostate and sex maniac.
If this "Bishop" Williamson represents the mind of SPPX, we'd better think again before we give them our blessing.
Sue:
Do you object to the linking of Jews and Freemasons, or do you believe both groups are innocent, or do you believe that the real problem is pointless scapegoating?
Let me ask the question a different way: if it could be demonstrated that Freemasons were influential at the council, would you condemn the reality or the perception?
I confess my ignorance. What is a neocath? Is that a Catholic who actually believes in and tries to uphold what the Catholic Church teaches as opposed to a liberal, heterodox, ala carte Catholic? Is that term any less of a perjorative than calling a person who practices the sin of sodomy a homosexual or people who advocate a fictitious, contrived lifestyle as a homophile?
'Let me ask the question a different way: if it could be demonstrated that Freemasons were influential at the council, would you condemn the reality or the perception?'
The question is, CAN it be demonstrated? Or is it just a fancy out of a Malachi Martin novel? Conspiracy theories are fun, but they should not be the basis of Church policy.
Another question is whether the violent anti-Semitic rhetoric of "Bishop" Williamson represents the mind of SPPX, and if so, whether the Vatican ought to be reconciling with such a group?
'What is a neocath?'
I was once a young neocath. My rhetoric was strident and bellicose, my judgments severe and merciless. Then one day I discovered that others who might be in a position to judge (as well as to bind and loose) had ample cause to pummel me to death with very large stones. Thus it is with some unease that observe these neocath pups, in whose eyes I sometimes detect what a friend of mine describes as "the cold glint of Donatist steel".
Now, to an arch-liberal like O'Leary, I no doubt come across as strident, bellicose, severe, and merciless. Yet believe me, I have mellowed with age. My heart is with the traditionalist movement, yet some of these neocaths are a bit much. A few salutary life lessons might be in store, Deo gratias.
"What is a neocath? Is that a Catholic who actually believes in and tries to uphold what the Catholic Church teaches as opposed to a liberal, heterodox, ala carte Catholic?"
Yeah, I think you've got it right. Fr. O'Leary, a modernistical pro-homosexuality sort of Catholic, used "neocath" to classify faithful Catholics, especially converts or those younger than he who love the faith, or who have rediscovered the faith.
Ironically, radical, schismatic traditionalist Catholics who absolutely detest Fr. O'Leary's kind of watered-down neo-Protestant pabulum also use "neocath" or "Neo-Catholic" to classify faithful Catholics. Kind of weird how opposite extremes both opted for the same patronising sort of label.
Jordan, perhaps the lesson here is that labels are unuseful. I suspect that "neocath" might be a label that some young Catholics of conservative stripe might wear proudly. Remember "NewCatholic" who used to frequent these pages?
Fr. O'Leary obviously uses the term "neocath" as a smear. In my comment above, I applied it to myself as denoting a stage in my own development as a Catholic. What I meant to draw attention to was not the label as such, but rather a certain way of being Catholic that I find problematic.
The issue is perhaps best illustrated by Ratzinger's much ballyhooed comments about a "smaller Church". There are at least two ways of understanding that concept. My reading of Ratzinger himself is that he is willing to accept the possibility of a smaller Church, in that he knows that people will leave the Church because they cannot tolerate sound teaching. He does not intend to water down the Church's teaching in order to keep those folks happily in the fold.
There are others who seem to actually WANT a smaller Church. These are the ones to whom I applied (perhaps unhappily) the "neocath" label. These are Catholics who seem intent on pushing "dissenters" OUT of the Church. They are like the young Republicans of the 1960s, with their taunt of "America, love it or leave it". I disagree with that approach. It is uncharitable and it is counter to the Gospel. Listen to our Lord's parable about the tares among the wheat:
'Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"' (Mt 13:24-30)
Can there be any doubt that this story was meant to be heard by faithful Catholics in Matthew's community, who wondered why they should endure Gnostics, Judaizers, and other heretics in their midst?
Jews and Freemasons...I don't think my objection is any of Chris's suggestions, because I haven't thought it through properly on an intellectual level. Every Jew born around the middle of the last century is sensitised to accusations of conspiracy: Hitler was pretty keen on linking Jews and Masons, for instance. Historically, many Freemasons have been Jewish (though many haven't): for all I know, Vatican II may well have been influenced by Jews, Freemasons, Rugby prop forwards or small slimy aliens from Planet Schlemiel. In a sense, that's irrelevant: listening to radtrads telling me that modern Jews aren't really Jews because - I can't remember what the because is, but it's something to do with lost tribes and Pharisees and stuff, I hear the rustle of barbed wire, smell the stench of the burial pits, see the heaps of teeth.
Truly, I'm not trying to play the Holocaust card and claim that Jews (and Israel) are blameless, perfect and free from any penalty if we do wrong; only that it's very hard to analyse carefully why radtrad anti-semitism is frightening - coming face to face with it is like being kicked in the kishkas: it hurts too much to analyse.
"We do not consider ourselves to have been severed from the community ...
--from the National Catholic Reporter editorial November 6, 1968, responding to Bishop Charles Helmsing's condemnation of it.
I'm not sure what "radtrad antisemitism" is supposed to amount to.
If you mean that Traditional Catholics don't think that the Old Covenant is still in effect, that's true. That's what every Catholic is required to believe, though.
If you mean that Traditional Catholics recognize that modern Judaism, which has largely embraced abortion, contraception, and all other manner of immorality, is working against the mission of the Church; well, that's true too.
If you mean that Traditional Catholics think that there is a discontinuity between the Jews before Christ and afterwards, that is true too--the Jews before the Messiah were looking towards Christ. The Jews who persist today have rejected them (in some capacity).
These all seem like obvious statements from a Catholic perspective. Or am I missing some aspect of what you're saying?
Also, Dave, if the heresy of the dissenters is formal, they are already outside of the Church.
'Also, Dave, if the heresy of the dissenters is formal, they are already outside of the Church.'
That may well be true. Yet does that mean that we should encourage them to pack their bags, leave the Church, stop coming to Mass, go become Anglicans, "don't let the door hit you on the way out"? Too often I've seen that sort of rhetoric in these comboxes. If the heretics decide to leave, let them leave. It will show that they were never one with us, as St. John says. Until then, we must endure them and try to love them. "Let both grow together until the harvest." That's all I'm saying.
As for Jews and Freemasons, I went back and read "Bishop" Williamson's letter more carefully. I can see that he is not calling for violence against Jews and Freemasons, as I first thought. Nevertheless, when he writes, '... so we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church ...', you'll have to admit that he plays into the hands of violent anti-Semitism.
'I'm not sure what "radtrad antisemitism" is supposed to amount to.'
How about scapegoating "the Jews" and whipping up hatred for them in our hearts -- a habit of mind most strongly discouraged by our Lord.
I know that St. John has been accused of scapegoating "the Jews" in his Gospel. One major difference: the Gospel of John is the inspired Word of God, whereas radtrad tracts are purely the product of man.
Gregg's statements are true enough - well, apart from the one about "modern Judaism... embrac[ing] abortion, contraception, and all other manner of immorality,...working against the mission of the Church", which is nonsense: there's no such thing as 'modern Judaism', any more than there's something called 'modern Christianity'.
Orthodox Jews reject what Catholics reject; liberal Jews accept what liberal Catholics accept; most of those born Jewish, like most of those born Catholic, are completely secularised now. The extra hostility of the last class of Jew against the Catholic Church comes, I think, because the Church is seen as the most powerful representative of Christianity, and the very word 'Christian' is unpleasant to post-Holocaust Jews: Hitler was a Christian. (Yes, I know as well as you do that Hitler renounced his faith, that the Nazis promoted a sort of neo-paganism, that the Church was also persecuted - all true; but I'm trying to show you how Jews think.)
I think this hostility towards Jews - which you'll note in Gregg's mail - stems from the particular sort of anti-Semitism found in France, where the Dreyfus case appears to have polarised Catholics and secularists: it's unfortunate that in this affair, the Catholics seem to have been wrong. Radical traditionalism is heavily influenced by Arcbp. Lefebvre's outlook, and he had the classic French Catholic 'take' on the Jewish people. Michael Davies, who was a friend and supporter of the Archbishop, was worried about this, BTW.
If you want to see the sort of thing which worries those of us who are Jewish Catholics, this site is useful:
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/thejews.htm
It's written and compiled by an ex-SSPX priest who left the Society largely because of its anti-semitism. If you look through the material he quotes and links to, you'll see that we're not just talking here about Gregg's first and third point.
Oh, and Dave's point about St John's Gospel being seen as anti-semitic: one of our priests suggested this to me, and it rocked me, as I'd never felt that for a moment. Clearly 'the Jews' in St John are the Jewish leaders, the authorities: given that St John was Jewish himself, as were all our Lord's first disciples, it seems unlikely that he could be anti-Semitic in the way we're talking about at the moment!
Anti-Semitism makes me want to vomit. There is no excuse for this form of stupidity and hate that masks itself as Catholic piety and loyalty, and I think it is safe to say that the main problems with the post-Vatican II Church have little or nothing to do with the 'Jews', but very much more to do with Catholics themselves. Stop blaming others for our problems. That is the devil's work.
As for the SSPX, if they are Catholics they must know that racism (hate) is a mortal sin, and that love of enemies and so forth is the Law of Love, commanded by out Lord Jesus Christ. Also, what about 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour'?
I think that the worst thing that happened after the Council was to allow the Tridentine Mass, and the symbolic power of our religious heritage (use it or lose it), to fall into the hands of those who are turning out to be dangerous schismatics. What insanity. Most likely it is a punishment from God for all our sins and liberal errors.
That said, is it fair to paint the entire SSPX (bishops, priests and affiliated laypeople) with the same brush? Give them a chance to return to Mother Church, and be welcoming and happy if they do.
==
Ooops! Should be:
"[..] commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ". Thanks!
==
"There are others who seem to actually WANT a smaller Church. These are the ones to whom I applied (perhaps unhappily) the 'neocath' label. These are Catholics who seem intent on pushing 'dissenters' OUT of the Church."
The ancient temptation to which the Donatists succumbed.
I wrote:
"I think that the worst thing [...]".
Hyperbole.
==
If you agree with my statements about Judaism, I don't understand why my post is an example of hostility towards Jews?
Anti-Semitism, if that term is to mean a hatred of the Jewish race, is of course quite inane and foolish. After all, Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles were all ethnically Jewish. But should it be taboo to note that Judaism, today, is a false religion? I don't think Traditionalists do anything more than this. But they are consistent: They denounce ALL false religions. They denounce Islam, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and, yes, Judaism. I would bet you probably hear even more criticism of the first two than Judaism.
Also, I am quite dubious of your claim that Orthodox Jews, as such, reject the abovementioned things. I know a number of Orthodox Jews and I have never once heard them talk about how their religion opposed such things. To be fair, though, modern Judaism is so fragmented that any sort of consensus is difficult to determine. I would be quite shocked to hear that any Jewish religion completely opposed contraception. But, to be fair, I am not greatly knowledgeable of these things; please inform me if I'm wrong.
Also, keep in mind, the Orthodox Jews are a very small minority, at least in most western countries. Most Jewish religions are, in fact, in favor of the abovementioned abominations.
Now, just some anecdotal experience. I go to a university that is heavily Jewish; most of the Jews, though, are non-observant and very secular. Most still practice the big days, I suppose, but that's about it. A few of them have expressed interest in Christianity but most of them have fallen short of converting. Why? Well, the Jewish culture in America is _utterly anti-Christian_. Jewish parents often have "funerals" for children that become Christian. Christ called the Jews who rejected Him the "synagogue of Satan"; Traditionalists sometimes use the same term to refer to modern Judaism in the same way. Considering such phenomena as I just mentioned, is it really that far off the mark? Judaism is a major stumbling block for conversion. You will often be completely ostracized by your family and Jewish friends if you convert. How that is not Satan at work is beyond me.
But, once again, to be clear: My criticism is of Judaism the religion, not of individual Jews. So often people try to deflect valid criticisms of Judaism by throwing up the race card, but that's just insane, especially against Traditional Catholics who love no one more than our (Jewish) Lord and His (Jewish) Mother.
And, yes, there are conspiracy theorists out there who make wild claims about Jews and world-dominion, even among Traditional Catholics. I can't imagine there's anything more than a very accidental connection between the views, though. After all, they are shared by believers of all stripes, unfortunate though it may be.
I suspect that "neocath" might be a label that some young Catholics of conservative stripe might wear proudly.
Response:
As a young Catholic, I hate the label "neo-Catholic." Sorry, but that's just stupid and theologically wrong. I am baptized Christian who is in full communion with Rome and my bishop. Call me Catholic. I spent about a year and a half dealing with radical traditionalists and for them to use that label for me is just stupid and dumb.
I am heartened by most of the comments here and disturbed by a few.
It is not clear that at any time that the unhappy ex-altarboy Hitler rejected Christianity - he is unreliably reputed to have asserted his Catholicism as late as 1942 – he was in his twisted mind doing God’s work. As much as any European of his time he came out of a context and to forget that is self-deception.
Anti Semitism directed against Jews is one of the most heinous species of racism. If it is alive and well in the SSPX then the Catholic Church should clearly and unequivocally tell them to “shove it” (Tridentine fripperies and all) unless they are prepared to completely and utterly reject this racism.
Ad orientem or upside down - racists are racists and racism is just not civilised. That is closely followed by religious intolerance as another example uncivilised behaviour. For the record (because I know Dr Blosser would be disappointed) likewise those who bang on about the sexual orientation of others. Really really uncool people.
You guys must decide whether you are the Church of Jewish refugees in Rome during the Spanish Inquisition and kosher food in Castel Gandolfo during WWII. This is the bright shiny lightfilled Church - a redemption of reputation – love of neighbour in the face of Nazism - the Church of the least of my brothers not the home for bigots.
Thanks for the friendly advice, Atiyah. As you can see in this combox, we Catholics are concerned about what kind of Church we are to be. It's not only about the liturgy. Just because we love the traditional Mass does not mean that we will tolerate racist Traditionalists.
We will also continue to affirm the clear teaching of the Catholic Church on the question of homosexual orientation and activity. Sorry if you think that is 'really really uncool'. I do not accept your equation of traditional Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and anti-Jewish racism. As for "banging on" about other people's sexual orientation, I am tired of that discussion. I've behaved badly (the "sniffing" charge is more fairly laid at my door than it is at Dr. Blosser's) and it is time to move on. You've been quiet, Atiyah. It's been nice. Maybe now it's my turn to be quiet.
I've read and replied to your comments in the other comboxes, as well as to those of our friendly new joiner, "Anonymous". Reply in kind as you please. I'm weary of debating with you.
From my understanding, "NeoCath" is a term of abuse coming from Traditionalists. It indicates what I like to call "orthodox Catholics"--that is, those who maintain orthodox teaching but who also obey bishops and popes who make decisions about liturgical or devotional issues that may not be wisest or soundest in the minds of the "NeoCath." In other words, a "NeoCath" obeys Rome and not Abp. Lefebvre's understanding of "Eternal Rome." In sum, "NeoCath" is meant to indicate that a Catholic really is on the way to liberal Catholicism because he's not a Traditionalist.
You wrote:
"Christ called the Jews who rejected Him the "synagogue of Satan"; Traditionalists sometimes use the same term to refer to modern Judaism in the same way."
"Christ called the Jews who rejected Him the "synagogue of Satan" [...].
*Who or what* exactly were these so-called 'Jews' or 'synagogue of Satan' (Rev 2:9; Rev 3:9)? Christ twice said: "who say they are Jews and are not". This is spiritual and figurative. Were they Jews (of Judaism), probably; or were they possibly pseudo or bad (apostate) Christians (of Jewish or gentile background) of some sort, or what?
St Paul to the Romans 2:29. "But he is a Jew that is one inwardly and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God. [Rheims/Challoner]"
In any event, I do not read things quite the same that you and the 'traditionalists' reportedly do. I would not apply it to modern Judaism; I understand the words of the Risen Christ as relating instead to specific times and places, and to specific groups of Jews (?), one group in the city of Smyrna, the other in Philadelphia.
In Smyrna, this group (assembly or synagogue of Satan) have in some way "blasphemed", denounced, slandered or accused the Christians there (before the political authorities?), and this is related to, or will result in, a persecution of the Church in that city:
"2:8. And to the angel of the church of Smyrna write: These things saith the First and the Last, who was dead and is alive:
"2:9. I know thy tribulation and thy poverty: but thou art rich. And thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
2:10. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer. Behold, the devil will cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried: and you shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death: and I will give thee the crown of life" [Rheims/Challoner].
Nothing explicit here about 'Jews' rejecting Christ anyways, but perhaps it can be assumed that the enemies of the Christians did. Regarding persecutions of Christians, a NAB note refers the reader to "cf Acts 14:2, 19; 17:5, 13".
==
Continued...
And the next reference:
"3:7. And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth:
[...]
3:9. Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee." [Rheims/Challoner]
-
"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie -- behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
10: Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth. [RSV]"
Again, nothing explicit about 'Jews' rejecting Christ here, but perhaps it can be assumed that they did in some way. Let me end by saying that I do not think it is helpful to call modern Judaism the ‘synagogue of Satan’.
==
One more comment: let us no go into John Chapter 8 here. Thanks!
"Well, the Jewish culture in America is _utterly anti-Christian_."
So? The secular culture is 'anti-Christian' too. So are Canadian and American cultures. The West. And the Islamic cultures, and the Asian, and the.... It seems most 'cultures' and 'subcultures', etc. on this planet have their anti-Christian (or non-Christian) representatives and orientations.
==
representatives and orientations/expressions
==
"So? The secular culture is 'anti-Christian' too. So are Canadian and American cultures. The West. And the Islamic cultures, and the Asian, and the.... It seems most 'cultures' and 'subcultures', etc. on this planet have their anti-Christian (or non-Christian) representatives and orientations."
While this is true, what does it amount to? Traditional Catholics rightly condemn ALL of this, including anti-Christian Jewish culture.
As for the bit about the "synagogue of Satan", I find your exegesis lacking. Of course Christ was referring to a specific group at a specific time when he uttered those words. However, modern Judaism - largely (note this modifier - I do not say every single member of the Jewish religion) - follows those Christ was condemning. For, what else would he condemn them for but for not accepting Him as the Messiah and, in fact, being hostile towards him for claiming as much?
Apolonio, I feel your pain. The "neo-cath" label is unconfortable, I agree. Labels are, it seems, both offensive and somewhat unavoidable, I suppose, because they are convenient. "Neo-Cath," "Neo-Con," "Rad-Trad" ... all of these are labels, which needn't be necessarily seen as terms of simple derision, such as "bigot," "imbicile," "racist," etc. "Liberal," and "conservative," are useful terms, as well, just like the first three mentioned above, but, likewise, have their limitation, the principal of which seems to lie in their relativism. "Neo-" with respect to what? "Conservative" with respect to what? "Radical" with respect to what? "Liberal" with respect to what? and so forth. Yet I don't suppose we'll ever escape labels, or altogether escape finding them to some degree useful.
If Christ is King, he is Lord of everyone, all nations and peoples. And I doubt he has a specific agenda against modern Jews. In fact, on the basis of the New Testament, I honestly suspect bad Christians and Catholics have much more to worry about. That is my exegesis.
==
???
I never claimed he had a specific agenda against modern Jews. I, in fact, said anything but that. I said Traditionalist Catholics are correctly applying an analogy between the Jews that Christ referred to as the "synagogue of Satan" and modern Jews, much like we might call someone a "good Samaritan" these days. I also said that Traditionalists consistently condemn all anti-Christian cultures and false religions.
St. Luke:
"9:54. And when his disciples, James and John, had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?
9:55. And turning, he rebuked them, saying: you know not of what spirit you are.
9:56. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save."
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/l...ible/
luk009.htm
==
I thought that this portion of SSPX Bishop Williamson's Letter (link provided by Dave) was interesting:
"In today's crisis of Church and world, our strength is in God alone, because humanly speaking we are powerless in the face of the trials confronting us. Our enemies are all-powerful, those inside the Church being much more dangerous than those outside. Just as the chief priests and ancients hated Jesus unto death, but they needed an Apostle to betray him, so we may blame Jews and Freemasons and others like them for engineering the destruction of the Church, but it has taken churchmen from within to do the actual betraying and destroying. Does Our Lord hate these traitors, as we can be sorely tempted to do? No, he seeks only their salvation, although their punishment will be horrible if they do not repent.
After being betrayed with a kiss in Gethsemane, Jesus calmly asked the Temple rabble whom they sought. "Jesus of Nazareth!" they cry out. "That is me", says Our Lord, but in such a way that they all crash to the ground (Jn XVII, 6)! Obviously it is Our Lord who is in control. But he wishes to suffer, so he smothers the power of his majesty and lets them arrest him - "This is your hour and the power of darkness" (Lk. XXII, 53). Obviously at any moment today the Lord God could stop the Church-wreckers dead in their tracks, but in March of 2000 it looks as though He is still choosing not to do so. Because God is holding back, the Devil has virtually a free rein and we are making the bitter experience of the power of darkness. But God's hour will come.
However Simon Peter could not wait. Single-handed with one sword he was ready to take on the whole Temple rabble that had come out to arrest Jesus. Virile and courageous, adoring Our Lord, he could not stand by inactive. He had to act! He slashes off an enemy ear, only to be told to sheath his sword by our Lord, who proceeds to look after the enemy! How many good men there are today who similarly cannot bear to stand by inactive, as it seems, and watch the rabble of mankind (us they can seem to us) tearing to pieces every last shred of truth and decency. Surely we can DO something! Surely we MUST do something! Let us slash the ears off a few Jews and Freemasons, etc.! But then we would find Our Lord only stooping over them to look after them! "You know not of what spirit you are" (Lk. IX, 55).""
http://www.sspxafrica.com/
docume..._Williamson.htm
==
Dr. Blosser:
I agree with your point that labels can be convenient and useful but it shouldn't be too much for the people who use them to at least define what they mean in the first place when they call someone a "neo-cath" "neo-con" or "rad-trad" so the reader can see if the label is useful, applicable, or merely being used as a perjorative.
I seem to remember the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman did just that in his Apologia when he took the time to define the term "Liberal" so that people understood what he was talking about.
"[...] them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Apoc. 2:9. [Rheims/Challoner]
[...] who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie [...]. Rev. 3:9 [RSV]
"I find your exegesis lacking"
Gregg, I am sorry. I am not a Biblical expert, nor claimed to be such. Can you do better? Please be my guest. Thanks, and peace to you in Christ Jesus!
==
I don't know...I have been disturbed by how many Traditionalist friends buy into Jewish conspiracy theories on sometimes flimsy and outright fraudulent evidence. And I do not say that as an "outsider".
There seems to be a reflexive tendency to believe things along those lines. And people pass it along to one another as though they have all done their own independent research...but it's mostly all just a matter of like passing on like in my experience.
To be clear:
Am I saying Jews don't need Christ? Absolutely not. Am I saying that the ADL is just great? NO. Am I saying that Jews have never been involved in deeply objectionable things. Again no.
But there does certainly seem to be some broad-brushing, scape-goating and propaganda out there, and it seems to get more than a fair hearing in Traditionalist circles in my particular experience.
Are all Traditionalists buying into this stuff? No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm only passing on my particular experience and noting that it honestly struck and bothered me.
Take it for what it's worth.
If the Bible calls someone a false Jew, surely it is speaking from the point of view of a true Jew; Let us not forget that the whole Bible was written by Jews - we should consult them more often about how it is to be read. The Sodom'n'Gomorrah fundamentalism rife on this blogsite is alien to the authentic Jewish tradition.
Yes, Christ is seemingly saying, in relation to these two groups, that the name or term 'Jew' is not correct, and does not properly apply to them. They may say they are such, but they are not so in truth (and morals). For them to call themselves 'Jews' is a misnomer.
Thus, one could speculate that Christ in the Book of Revelation is not so much calling them the "synagogue of Satan" because they have rejected him, but mainly because they are not good 'Jews'. But to establish this, one would need to know what is meant by the term 'Jew' in this context, and to whom it specifically refers.
Although I am probably wrong, I still wonder if these two specific groups in question, called the "synagogue of Satan", were not early 'Christian' Judaizers.
==
It is rather like saying to a very bad (immoral) unrepentant Christian: 'you call yourself a Christian and a Catholic, but you are really just a hypocrite. - You are acting like you are the member of the Devil's church'.
==
"I have been disturbed by how many Traditionalist friends buy into Jewish conspiracy theories on sometimes flimsy and outright fraudulent evidence."
"But there does certainly seem to be some broad-brushing, scape-goating and propaganda out there, and it seems to get more than a fair hearing in Traditionalist circles in my particular experience."
My comment: All these conspiracy theories need to be tested (restricted/subject) to the holy light of the Lord's commandments: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor' and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'.
==
Regarding 'conspiracy theories' 'scape-goating and propaganda': As I wrote above - Stop blaming others for our problems. That is the devil's work.
==
Paul B:
I agree that these theories need to be tested and that the scape-goating needs to stop. I also like something a friend once told me (I don't know if this is a quote of someone else):
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
And I would say that those who have persistently exhibited a strong proclivity to uncritically accept and repeat such propaganda and outright fabrications ought not be the ones to do this testing for the sake of the public at large. They have already established their inability to think objectively and fairly on the subject.
In response to SVII:
I agree one can learn some valuable things from Jewish tradition. But I wouldn't direct Catholics to Jewish tradition to get the best understanding of the Bible (or much else aside from Judaism itself, really).
Commenting by HaloScan
