Fr Stephen Smuts

SSPX Head, Bernard Fellay: Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’

with 41 comments

What’s with the perpetual anti-Semitic leanings of this Society?!

The head of a controversial Catholic sect says that Jews are “enemies of the Church,” but the sect has denied any anti-Semitic intentions.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, declared Jews “enemies of the Church” during a talk that aired on a Canadian radio station, the Catholic News Agency recently reported. Fellay’s remarks took place on Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Chapel in New Hamburg, Ontario.

Fellay, discussing negotiations with the Vatican in 2012 concerning the Society’s future, said the following during the address: “Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The enemies of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the Modernists.”

Fellay said Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s,” according to the Catholic Register.

The Second Vatican Council modernized the Catholic Church in the 1960s and is the reason the Society of St. Pius X split from the main body and was founded in 1970 as part of the Traditionalist Catholic movement. Some traditionalists blame Jews for the reforms that took place during the Vatican II council meetings, notes the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The Society of St. Pius X posted a press release in response to Fellay’s “enemies of the Church” comment, denying any anti-Semitic connotations. The release reads that “enemies” refers to “any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls.”

The release continued thus:

By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists. Accordingly the Society of St. Pius X denounces the repeated false accusations of anti-Semitism or hate speech made in an attempt to silence its message.

This is not the first time one of the sect’s members has spoken out against Jews.

In 1985, one of the Society’s founders, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also identified enemies of the sect as “Jews, Communists and Freemasons,” according to JTA. In addition, traditionalist Bishop Richard Williamson has denied that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews in the Holocaust and that no more than 200,000 to 300,000 died during WWII.

Jesuit Priest Rev. James Martin expressed his disapproval of Fellay’s comment and of the Society in general. “I cannot imagine how any further talks can continue with the group,” Martin told The Huffington Post. “Theologians have been silenced for dissenting in lesser ways from official church teaching.

Meanwhile, via the Washington Post:

The Vatican reaffirmed its commitment to dialogue with Jews on Monday (Jan. 7) after the head of a traditionalist breakaway group called them “enemies of the Church.”

The Vatican chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said that it was “meaningless” and “unacceptable” to label Jews as “enemies” of the Catholic Church.

“Both Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II personally engaged in dialogue with Jews,” he said. As a sign of their commitment, Lombardi noted the two popes’ visits to Jerusalem’s Western Wall, Judaism’s most sacred site, and to synagogues in Rome and elsewhere.

The Vatican reassurance came after Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), said on Dec. 28 that “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists” were opposing the group’s reconciliation with the church.

Fellay assessed the status of relations between the SSPX and the Vatican in a long speech at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario. The audio of the speech was posted on YouTube on Dec. 30.

At Benedict’s prompting, the Vatican in 2009 opened talks to repair the decades-long breach with the SSPX, focusing on the group’s rejection of the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which revolutionized the church’s relations with Judaism.

Anti-Semitic strains within the SSPX have been a major headache for the Vatican; shortly after Benedict lifted the 1988 excommunications of four SSPX bishops, it emerged that one of the bishops, Richard Williamson, was a vocal denier of the Holocaust…

On Monday, Lombardi stressed that he was not directly responding to Fellay’s words but merely restating the church’s official position on relations with Jews, which dates to the Second Vatican Council. He declined to comment on the potential impact of Fellay’s words on the dialogue between the Vatican and the SSPX.

And the Jerusalem Post:

Jews are “enemies of the Church,” the head of a radical Catholic sect said in Canada.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, made the remark during a Dec. 28 address at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario, about 90 minutes’ drive west of Toronto. He was reviewing the situation of the society, which opposes Catholic Church reforms decided by the Second Vatican Council and is not recognized by the Church.

According to an audio recording posted on YouTube two days later, Fellay spoke about the society’s three years of discussions with the Vatican over the society’s future and explained how he interpreted behind-the-scenes communications.

Apparently speaking without a text, Fellay asked, “Who during that time was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the society? The enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the Modernists.”

According to the Catholic News Service, Fellay added that Jewish leaders’ support of reforming Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s.”

As of Friday, there was no response from the society’s Swiss headquarters to a Catholic News Service email request for comment, the agency reported.

The Society of St. Pius X, , was founded in 1970 as a reaction against the Vatican’s efforts to modernize. In 2009, Pope Benedict launched talks with the society and lifted excommunications imposed on its four bishops.

One of the bishops was Richard Williamson, who has denied that the Nazis used gas chambers and asserted that no more than 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died during  World War II…

Totally unacceptable.

 

About these ads

Written by Fr Stephen Smuts

January 7, 2013 at 23:20

41 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It is so easy to use the term “Jew” or “Jews” as a catch all. Everyone immediately accepts “Jews” as all inclusive which it is by most Jews if not all. By not specifying ‘which’ Jews you are referring to, one can have a fall back position as here, “By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists”. Which leaders, which organizations, which Synagogues of Satan? Why you know, those ones! So the masses accept the phrase at face value – all Jews, all organizations all synagogues.
    Funny, they don’t go after the larger threat, Islam and Muslims who are ready to burn down Rome itself given the chance. No, lets pick on the Jews.
    Nothing ever changes.

    Matthew the Wayfarer

    January 8, 2013 at 02:05

  2. In order to begin to understand the phenomenon of Mgr Fellay and the SSPX, it is perhaps necessary to go back to the situation of the Church in France during the inter-war years, the German occupation and Vichy France.

    Between the two world wars the French state had maintained the strict separation between church and state imposed by the 1905 law. In particular the separation excluded the Church from any role in public schools. The longstanding aim of the Church hierachy was to recover its influence in public affairs.

    Many saw the concordats the Vatican reached with Mussolini and Hitler as a step in the right direction particularly as regards Catholic education in schools. A 1926 poster put out by the Catholic Republican Union asserted: “We are one society and Fascism is another ; but if Fascism makes you disappear, oh free thinkers, humanity will be well rid of you…!” and in 1933 the very Catholic publication, La Croix (The Cross), stated that “the German concordat of 20 July is the most important religious event since the Reformation” and applauded the fact that “the new German education regulations require the complete exclusion of secularism from the school”.

    Then came WW2. After the defeat of France in 1940, France was divided into an Occupied Zone under direct German administration and a “Free Zone” where there was a puppet and collaborationist régime headed by the first world war hero Marshal Pétain. In this free zone, the old Republican motto of “Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité” was replaced by the new watchwords: “Travail, Famillle, Patrie”.

    The aims of the Vichy régime were pleasing to the Church authorities: both wished to rid French life of: Jews, Communists, Socialists, freemasons, free thinkers, atheists – all of who were made scapegoats for the French defeat.

    So the Church hierarchy threw itself behind Vichy. Some examples:

    - 30 July 1940: Archbishop Salieges states: “The legitimate government of France is headed by a man who has given France the gift of his person. A magnificent example of the renunciation of all egotism and of a noble love of the fatherland”.

    - 2 October 1940: The Archbishop of Aix announces: “Without hesitation we should all group ourselves around the the illustrious Marshal”.

    - 2 October 1940: In La Croix one is informed that: “The teachings of the Head of State are similar to those of the Sovereign Pontiff”.

    - 19 November 1940: Cardinal Baudrillart, Rector of the Catholic University of Paris, declares: “In the skies over France in 1940, skies full of tempests, a beneficial light has been manifested and has revived all our hopes! This light is, of course, the Marshal”.

    - 16 February 1941: Bishop Dutoit of Arras calls to mind the duties of a good Catholic: “The duty is simple, yet of utmost gravity: to follow, and support with our confidence, Marshal Pétain”.

    - 3 December 1941: Archbishop Baudrillart writes: “Against the powers of the demons, Archangel Gabriel wields his avenging sword, shining and invisible. With him march the Christian and civilised peoples who defend their Fatherland, their future, beside the German armies”.

    - 1942: The Bishop of Marseille states: “We are not ignoring the fact that the Jewish question poses difficult problems, nationally and internationally. We well recognise that our country has the right ot take all necessary measures to defend us against those who, especially in recent years, have done it so much harm, and that it has the duty to severly punish those who abuse the hospitality which is so liberally accorded them”.

    - February 1942: Bishop Lusaunier, Director of the seminary of the Carmelites, states: “The French should obey Pétain, not De Gaulle”.

    - May 1942: In the brochure, Frenchmen! Your bishops address you, one can read: “In the social and civic domain we profess complete loyalty to the power established by the Government of France, and we urge our faithful to enter into this spirit.”

    - February 1944: The Bishops of France condemn the Resistance army; Cardinal Gerlier states: “Pétain is France, and France is Pétain!”

    The Church hierarchy in Petain’s France turned a blind eye to the deportation of 50,000 Jews to the gas chambers although there were acts of great heroism by some priests, religious and laity who were able to save numbers of Jews from the Holocaust. Likewise, after the defeat of Germany and the liberation of France, there were those in the French church who collaborated in the movement by which some Nazis escaped to Latin American countries.

    After the Liberation, of course, many of those who had actively collaborated, had to rebrand themselves.

    Many suceeded but some were found out – an example would be Maurice Papon who processed more than 1,600 Jews for deportation to the death camps from Bordeaux – but went on to be a civil servant under De Gaulle and later a minister – until he was convicted for crimes against humanity. Incidentally, before he was found out, he treated Muslims in Algeria and Paris in much the same way as he had treated the Jews.

    I would hold that the SSPX represents a strand in French ecclesiastical thought that relates back to the Pétanist and collaborationist hierarchy of occupied France. It is antisemitic and islamophobic and it is part of that school of though which posits that since democracy is not necessary for salvantion, it is in order for the Church to collaborate with dictators if the Church thereby gains greater influence in public affairs.

    @ Matthew the Wayfarer: I’m sorry to see you exchange one scapegoat for another.

    Mourad

    January 8, 2013 at 08:26

    • An excellent if damning explanation.

      One question: given that in Feb. 1944 the French bishops “condemn[ed] the Resistance”, whatever did they do after D-Day and the liberation of France by about the end of 1944 in order to avoid being imprisoned as collaborators themselves?

      Joshua

      January 8, 2013 at 08:41

      • French Bishops were NOT collaborators to any extent. See below. Our friend Mourad, who is an Algerian (I believe), has a very particular and partial way of telling the history of France.

        + pax et bonum

        Don Henri

        January 8, 2013 at 15:35

      • Not an Algerian, but one who is perhaps better informed about the history of Algeria’s liberation struggle than you as the son of “pieds noirs” may be.

        On the web site of the US Holocaust Memoral you will find quite a good potted summary of what happened in Algeria Vichy Discrimination against Jews in North Africa.

        It you wish to know more you might try Michel Abitol’s Les Juifs d’Afrique du Nord sous Vichy or Henri Msellati’s Les Juifs d’Algérie sous le Régime de Vichy.

        You may not find either work very pleasnt reading. Vichy was particularly strong among the pieds noirs in Algeria. ” Les lois de Vichy ont frappé très durement les juifs d’Algérie. La population juive d’Algérie, de nationalité française depuis le décret Crémieux (1870) se trouve brutalement déchue de sa nationalité, destituée de ses droits, dépossédée de ses biens.”

        There were many “pieds noirs” who profited greatly from the anti-Jewish laws. Unsurpisingly, in the light of what had happed to them under Vichy a huge proportion of the Resistance Fighters who paved the way for the Allied landing – Operation Torch – were Jewish notably José Aboulker. And, as Benjamin Stora wrote: ” Et pourtant, si l’insurrection algérienne avait éclaté à la fin de l’époque vichyssoise, elle aurait sans doute attiré la sympathie d’un grand nombre de juifs, car pendant cette sombre période, les Algériens musulmans ne se sont livrés à aucun acte hostile envers eux”.

        Mourad

        January 9, 2013 at 00:40

      • Nul besoin de remuer le couteau dans la plaie.

        + pax et bonum

        Don Henri

        January 9, 2013 at 00:54

      • Don’t worry, the colonial imperialists and their crazy religion are gone now. Nothing has gone wrong since then, right? Right?

        Ioannes

        January 9, 2013 at 01:09

      • “You as the son of “pieds noirs””. How much contempt I sense in these few words… For other readers of this blog, the pieds-noirs were very brave and honest people, who left France, Italy and Malta (mainly) for Algeria in the course of the 19th century and built a new society there not unlike the one existing on the frontier in the US. They were 8 millions of them in Algeria in 1954. After many generations there, due to the independence of Algeria now led by an Arab-nationalist party with Marxist leanings, they were brutally expelled from what had become on the course of the generations their own country. My family was given 30 minutes to leave the land where it had lived since about 1840 (for more than 120 years) at gunpoint and with absolutely no belonging of any kind. They were not “land predators” as when they settled Algeria was very sparsely populated, and they greatly helped putting the country on the road to modernity. As a small example, my ancestor Dr. Raynaud led the operations leading to the elimination of malaria from the former Mitidja swampland, now Mitidja plain, and operations of systematic vaccinations. This is a thing even Arab nationalists were thankful for, as there is still today, 40 years after the independence, a street named after in in Alger. He also created the Roman and Hellenic antiquities Museum of Tipaza, that was sadly looted in the 70′s by FLN government officials who destroyed many antiques, and sold the remains to foreign collectors. The Roman site of Tipaza is now on the UNESCO list of World Heritage in Danger.

        While it’s true that some pieds-noirs supported the Vichy government during WWII many others, certainly more numerous, supported the Allies, and indeed enabled them to set foot in North-Africa. My own grandfather was from such a family and left his hometown of Tipaza for Virginia in the United States in 1941 and joined the US Air Force as a pilot. He was later decorated for the successful bombing of many cities such as Cherbourg, Le Havre , Cologne and Dresden (to name the most well-known) he commanded.
        As to the Jews, well, at that time antisemitism was widespread everywhere, and while it is indeed probable that this kind of opinion was as widespread in Algeria as everywhere else, it’s worth noting that latter in history, Algerian Jews assimilated completely to the pieds-noirs community, and were deported from Algeria alongside.

        Talking about a country from which your family was forcibly removed is rather heartbreaking. I suppose German people who used to be from Silesia and East-Prussia and German people from the Volga area feel the same. Not only the people were expelled, but any trace of their presence was erased, and history completely rewritten. Often, they didn’t found any welcome in the country they were “repatriated” to, a country that has for long ceased to be their own.

        + pax et bonum

        Don Henri

        January 9, 2013 at 17:22

    • This is simply not true! You seem to forget conveniently the role French Bishops had in saving as many Jews as was possible. Bishop Théas of Montauban was declared a right among the nations, as was Bishop Piguet who was deported in Dachau for helping Jews, and the Bishop Salièges you refer about, while a supporter of Pétain, was to the core an anti-nazi and had a solemn declaration condemning their policy and affirming the dignity of the Jew people, while France was occupied, risking his life in this.

      Our national Church had an attitude of support toward Pétain, but never, never, never condoned the Shoah to any extent, and many of its prelate supported the France-Libre of général de Gaulle (and of course not the internal Résistance largely dominated by communists).

      + pax et bonum

      Don Henri

      January 8, 2013 at 15:34

      • Don Henri

        January 8, 2013 at 15:42

      • Monsieur,

        You may or may not like my politics, but I, a foreign supporter of Action Française (je faire un don), sympathize with you and the constant defamation of your bishops as a part of the general defamation of the Catholic Church for its supposed complicity of inhumanities that occurred during World War 2.

        I pray for you and your countrymen.

        Ioannes

        January 8, 2013 at 17:31

      • Don Henri is right to mention the fact that 3 French bishops have been recognised as righteous gentiles for their actions during the occupation of France. I was careful to say in my original post that there were many heroic acts by priests, religious and laity. But how many hundred French bishops were there in France during the occupation ?

        The plain fact is that the hierachy as a whole was Pétanist and the did not hesitate to seek to draw advantage from the régime: Some key dates:-

        5 July 1940: Cardinals write to Pétain to reintroduce teaching of religion in Public Schools.

        6 December 1940: The Pétainist régime decides that “Duties towards God” should be taught in Public Schools.

        6 January 1941: The optional teaching of religion is introduced in Public Schools.

        February 1941: Religious buildings are restored to the Church by the Pétain regime,

        1941: The archbishops write to Pétain, asking for a new concordat with the Vatican.

        2 November 1941: A law is promulgated, allowing private Catholic schools to be subsidised by public funds. Later, public [state] school budgets are allowed to finance private schools.

        8 April 1942: The July 1904 law on Congregations is abrogated and they are allowed back. Even after the Liberation of France, the 1904 law remains abrogated.

        25 December 1942: Catholic cultural associations are accorded civil and testamentary rights.

        3 January 1943: A law makes communes responsible for the maintenance costs of churches.

        The plain and undeniable fact is that the hierarchy as a whole was pro-Vichy – the this is a dictator we can do business with” syndrome. Bishops who publicly opposed the policy were few, while very many of the clerkgy, religious and laity were very opposed.

        In response to Joshua’s query as to what happened after the Liberation, the fact is that De Gaulle was only briefly in power. There was a chaotic period known as the epuration and then there were more or less organised purges of collaborators.

        The Catholic Herald of 16th May 1945 reported that De Gualle wished to force the resignation of more than 20 French bishops. In Robert Zaretsky’s book, “Nimes at War”, the author states that De Gaull’es “List A” of prominent collaborator Bishops had 26 names on it, but he goes on to observe that the list had some names who ought not to have been on it and others whose collaboration was manifest who were inexplicably omitted. In the event Cardinal Tisserand was sent from Rome to mediate and I believe the number of higher clerics required to resign was in single digits.

        Unfortunately, the IVth Republic took over from the GPRF in 1946. De Gaulle went off to Colombey-les-deux-Eglises not to return to power until 1st June 1958..

        Mourad

        January 8, 2013 at 23:42

      • It is very despressing to see someone like you who is usually well informed and rational putting forward such an apologia for French colonialism in Algeria.

        So let’s be quite straight: the nearest equivalent society would be that of apartheid South Africa. Algeria had indigenous peoples, among them the kabyle who pre-dated the romans or the arabs, arabs and jews.

        The French invaded, expropriated land and, yes, gave it largely to impoverished Spanish, Italian, Maltese and others and gave them French citizeship. Most of them had never been to metropolitan France. As for the indigenous population, they had no civil rights, they were subjected to the infamous Code de l’Indigénat”> which made them serfs within their own country.

        It will be noted that one of the permitted roles for the serfs was enrolement in the colonial forces. Very many fought for France in both the 1st and 2nd world wars – so much so that it is very possible that the unknown soldier honoured at the Arc de Triompe is an Algerian

        France always fought sought to the last of its colonial troops and then caved in. As in France in WW2. “Stand fast” cried the politicians – but they were saying it over their shoulders as they made for the channel ports, for the Swiss border or for the ferrys to French North Africa where Vichy was welcomed by the pieds noirs.

        There is a wealth of documentation about the injustice of French Algeria and hte war of liberation but I commend to those who may be interested a collection of documents and audio statements by those who lived through it and survived – in French Memoires d’Algérie on the website of El Watan -an Algerian French newspaper.

        Mourad

        January 9, 2013 at 22:45

      • But Mourad, when one considers that all of North Africa was part of Christendom before the Muslims invaded and forcible converted the indigenous inhabitants to Islam one can see very little wrong in France trying to right an ancient wrong.

        Dale

        January 9, 2013 at 23:39

      • Shhh! Dale!

        Didn’t you know, people like Charles Martel, Christians who would take up arms in defense of Christendom, are evil? The Reconquista was evil, because the enlightened, peace-loving, tolerant Muslims who spread their religion of peace in the Iberian Peninsula and in Europe were the original inhabitants before the Romans and the Visigoths?

        Let us praise the wronged Muslims, lest the pod people come and take us away!

        Ioannes

        January 10, 2013 at 00:02

      • @Dale @Ioannes

        It is one thing to seek to convert Muslims to Christianity. I entirely support the mission of the White Fathers. In 2010 the Basilica of Notre Dame d’Afrique was restored with funds provided by both the EU and the Marseilles Region and the Wilaya and City of Algiers – see this report from the BBC which incorrectly refers to the Basilica as a Cathedral Christians and Muslims unite in Algiers’ cathedral

        The words over the high altar are as apposite today as they always have been. “Notre Dame d’Afrique priez pour nous et pour les Musulmans” – “Our Lady of Africa, pray for us and for the Muslims.”

        There is still a Catholic hierachy in Algeria. That is largely thanks to his late Eminence Cardinal Leon-Etienne Duval who took Algerian nationality when Algeria finally gained its independence and whose memory is recorded here Le Cardinal Duval, cet homme juste – The Cardinal Duval, that just man – by an Algerian Muslim reporter in an Algerian newspaper.

        BTW – Prior to his translation to Algiers, Cardinal Duval was one of the sucessors to the see of St Augustine of Hippo.

        On this site there are some beautiful photographs of Cathedral of the Sacred Heart – Algiers, Colours of Algeria Website.

        The impressive web site of Abdelkhalek Labbize is well worth a more general visit – it shows what a beautiful country Algeria is. One can understand why many pieds noirs in France still have great nostalgia for the country they left at the end of the war of independence.

        The point worth making is that the Algerians were originally seeking nothing greater than equal civil rights – they would have been happy to continue as they were legally in 1945 – a part of metropolitan France. It was the refusal to grant those civil rights which led to the bloody war of independence. It is all so very sad.

        So, No. I do not regard the Reconquista as something to be proud of. Have we learned nothing since the Middle Ages? Neither Christianity nor Islam are to be imposed by the sword. Two wrongs do not make a right.

        Mourad

        January 10, 2013 at 07:27

    • Let me illustrate a certain case of Bishops and other religious siding with the opposition of a dictatorship. During the end of the Marcos Regime in the 1980′s a growing public outrage against that government sparked by electoral fraud has caused a relatively peaceful uprising called the “People’s Power” or “EDSA Revolution.” Those citizens, majority Catholic, were encouraged by various religious groups, from nuns, priests, bishops to even a Cardinal. They all rallied around the woman, Corazon Aquino, who was the widow of a politician who was the greatest critic of Ferdinand Marcos, Benigno Aquino Jr. He was assassinated, (And the people responsible aren’t still known to this day.) And somehow, his wife became the rallying point of various groups, including communists and anarchists.

      Eventually, Marcos was exiled to Hawaii, with the help of the United States, and the widow of Ninoy Aquino, Corazon, became president -for some reason- despite not having any political experience and relying solely on the fact that her husband got shot, and how much Filipinos hated the Marcos family and administration.

      Fast forward to the start of the second decade of the 21st century, with the election of the son, Benigno Aquino III. Around that time, Corazon had died, and a massive state funeral parade was arranged -for some reason- and she is regarded as if she were a saint. Nevermind the amount of priests their entire family consented to putting to death in secret, or instituting terror gangs to prey on those who try to take issue with them.

      And now, at this time, we have a falling out between the Roman Catholic Church and the Filipino Government, headed by Benigno Aquino III with the passing of the RH Bill, which teaches sexual materials to children as early as primary school, and the free distribution of contraceptives. Those who perform abortions can now walk under the light of the sun, abandon their hooked wires and other crude tools and be called “Doctors” in state-funded murder factories they call “Clinics”. You cannot believe how much Aquino apes Obama and other foreign countries, as if it will do the Philippines any good- the sentiment is: “The RH Bill is passed so the Philippines can get richer.” That is, they blame people for the state of their country, and so they will follow China’s example, and I am not surprised if the government imposes forced abortions on its citizenry, or if the encouragement of the usage of birth control leads to a demographic crises like the one Japan is facing.

      Are those bishops and religious regretful of ever supporting liberals in the Filipino government, liberals whose children now have no fear of God and are quickly converting to protestantism of to no religion at all? Who knows? But some even openly support Benigno Aquino probably due to their ignorance and gullibility. Some of them even get to be Cardinal, like Luis Tagle. But it is undeniable that those bishops aided a liberal monster, considered right-wing and conservative merely by their external support for Catholicism. But inside, just as with Filipino politics in general, there is rot and decay that needs to be killed by fire.

      And now, the conservatives are going to be portrayed as delusional idiots or insane individuals who cannot accept the reality of the world. (Indeed, this is how the supporters of the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines are increasingly being portrayed as, while the younger, trendier generation imitate the debauchery of the West.)

      Being sane is living in the real world, not in the world everyone else lives in. And I see so much madness that I am not really surprised if one group or another is treated by a majority as if they are mad. Not to say the SSPX is any better. They live in a popeless world and still call themselves “Catholics.” They are the example of traditionalism gone wrong.

      Ioannes

      January 8, 2013 at 17:06

  3. And Fellay is considered a moderate and dangerous liberal by some within the SSPX!

    Robert ian Williams

    January 8, 2013 at 08:46

  4. Reblogged this on and commented:
    The JTA reports on Bishop Bernard Fellay calling the Jews the enemies of the Church here http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/01/06/3116131/bishop-calls-jews-enemies-of-the-church but lets see what a Catholic friend of Israel has to say about it.

    Gev

    January 8, 2013 at 13:06

  5. [...] SSPX Head, Bernard Fellay: Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’ (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com) [...]

  6. Let’s not forget that there are Jews who take offense at Catholics praying for their conversion on Good Friday, because conversion to the One True Faith is offensive, apparently. They take offense at the fact that Pope Pius XII is being considered for sainthood, despite him having saved thousands of Jews. “Oh, he didn’t do enough.” But he did something; he has done more than what Americans have done in their late arrival to “rescue Europe from the Nazis”; the fact that he didn’t do enough should not overlook the fact that he did something.

    If Jews are going to be offended by Catholics who aren’t praising the Jews at every sermon and campaigning to send money to Israel at every Mass collections, then what does it matter if Bishop Fellay is labeled anti-semitic? Jews themselves can be anti-semitic too, you know, both through self-hatred or hatred of their fellow semites- the Arabs.

    I’m sick of their victim complex, really. I know some Jews would just like to worship and pray in peace and generally leave people alone as they would like to be left alone, but some Jews just ask for trouble, and they should not be surprised if they get trouble let alone having their hurt feelings ignored.

    Here’s where it boils down to;

    Ioannes

    January 8, 2013 at 17:19

    • Fr Anthony Chadwick

      January 8, 2013 at 18:19

      • If that’s a shot at me, let me correct you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI

        God forbid, anyone mocks a sincerely angry Jew. (Both of Coren and Boteach are ethnically Jewish, by the way.)

        Or a Muslim. Do you dare openly mock Islam where crowds of Muslims can hear you or publicly read your words?

        I guess that’s why there are more jokes about Christians. We’re acceptable targets at the moment, if anyone’s been living under a rock for the last 50-200 years.

        Ioannes

        January 8, 2013 at 21:46

  7. I am really glad that the Vatican has moved quickly to distance itself from the Anti Semitic statements of the head of the breakaway “Catholic” group, the SSPX. The Vatican stated that it was “unacceptable” to label Jews as “enemies” of the Catholic Church.
    For many years the SSPX has endorsed anti Semitism through promoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their website.
    The Protocols are still being used by many people around the world to justify hatred of the Jewish people. The document is a fabrication of lies, made by Russian secret police agent Pytor Ivanovich Rachovsky, claiming that a secret Jewish network was plotting to take over the world. It was first printed in 1897. The Protocols was used widely to justify the Pogroms in Tzarist Russia. The Nazis used it to push forward the Holocaust. Today, sadly, it is one of the most popular books in Arabic in the Muslim world and was turned into a mini series on Egyptian television.
    Cardinal Walter Kasper produced an excellent Paper on Anti-Semitism: A wound to be healed in 2003 and he highlighted in it how the Protocols were an “anti Jewish libel” and contributed to a mindset of “contempt and hatred for the Jews” that led to the Holocaust. The Christian faith and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are incompatible.
    I plead with the Vatican authorities to cancel all discussions with the SSPX until they make a public apology for their anti Semitism.
    Paddy Monaghan
    Catholic Lay Missionary

    Paddy Monaghan

    January 8, 2013 at 18:52

  8. Bishop Fellay said, “Even in the council there are some things we accept,” as well as reject, however, the group wishes to be free to say, “there are errors in the council” and that “the new Mass is evil.”

    Not a chance of reconcillaition, but maybe more moderate SSPX people will come over and join with the recognised groups.

    Robert ian Williams

    January 8, 2013 at 21:45

    • Ah, see, this is where I disagree with the SSPX. The New Mass is susceptible to abuse, but it’s not inherently evil, per se; It came from a legitimate, if not eccentric authority in Paul VI; the original Novus Ordo Mass was in Latin, and translated into various vernaculars. The New Mass can be celebrated reverently, ad orientem, in Latin, with altar rails, etc.

      It’s just that people have gotten accustomed to the madness priests and bishops introduced “In the Spirit of Vatican II.”

      People already had been leaving the SSPX. Their place in the Roman Catholic Church is in the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter. (At least for the priests.) I don’t know where the lay-person involved in the SSPX can go. It’s not like the FSSP is similar to the Ordinariates.

      Ioannes

      January 8, 2013 at 21:52

      • Ioannes, I think one thing that stirs some people up about the RC New Order liturgy is how very Protestant it can appear to be, almost Lutheran and even less traditional than many Anglican liturgies. Take just the Offertory. What little there is today is an abandonment of pre-Reformation and Tridentine Roman liturgy, where its importance was stressed; now it appears to be in accord with Luther and Cranmer’s thinking. And we watched the high tide of Protestant liturgics get swept away in light of Rome’s modernization. Just took Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians about a decade later to modernize in accord with Rome, almost a harmonization?

        I think this stirs up the old disputes tied to the Reformation, where Rome went out of its way to disparage Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed liturgies. And yet here in America on any given Sunday the average person in the pews would be hard pressed to tell the differences between RC, ELCA, PCUSA, and ECUSA (as long as no priestess tried to celebrate). And the issue is even more pronounced for Anglicans in light of the Anglican Orders problem. What once seemed so deficient in the eyes of Rome has become…Roman worship? If so, then what was ever really defective about it? How can something be null and void if what Rome now does is so much like what they were doing back then or even less traditional?

        Michael Frost

        January 9, 2013 at 19:02

  9. What utter rot…..there can be no comparison with Cranmer or Luther as regards the ” new Mass” or the ordinal. The Protestants stripped them of sacrifice and sacerdotalism.

    In the so called New Mass we have prayers to the saints and for the dead…not in the BCP
    We have the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei……..expunged in the BCP
    We have the consecration and elevation of the host and an explicit prayer of oblation..all expunged in the BCP..
    We have the Gloria in the right place and no general absolution…unlike the BCP.

    We have the prayer for the elements to become the body and blood..not be to us ( a deleiberate Cranmerian doublespeak)

    Liturgical Reform is the prerogative of the Church and is guaranteed by indefectibilility.
    The same is true of the Ordinal.the Devil has led so many good Catholics out of the Church by the confusing unfounded allegation that a vernacular Mass is like the heresies of Cranmer or Luther.

    Robert ian Williams

    January 9, 2013 at 23:25

    • Robert, I noticed most of your specifics are tied to “the BCP”. Which one are you talking about? I’m clearly comparing today (2012), both inside Roman, Lutheran, and Anglican Communions, to where they were at various points in time.

      I noticed you didn’t compare the current RC liturgy to that of Trent or that (those) that were in use before Trent. Just compare the Offertory. Pretty much every RC liturgy I’ve attended over the past couple decades has used the shortest eucharistic canon; is that Rite II?

      You do realize that during the early Lutheran Reformation there were many and various Church Orders, just in Germany, let alone Scandanavia. And that liturgics has waxed and waned for Lutheranism over the centuries as it has for Romans and Anglicans. Have you ever read the 1958 American joint Lutheran liturgy (used by most except LCMS, LCWS)? Magnificent! (I think this is the finest liturgy created in English for English speakers.) There was the 1978. And now the modern ELCA liturgy. Both 1978 and 2006 moved in same direction as your New Order liturgy.

      As for BCPs, there are 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662 just for CofE. Americans have their own today and in past (e.g., 1892, 1928, & 1979). As do most other Anglican National Churches.

      The local continuing Anglican Church I worshipped with this past Sunday pretty much has everything you mentioned…and more: introits, collects, etc. I believe it is based on the English and American Missals.

      If memory serves me, hasn’t the RC Anglican Usage in USA been using for nearly 30 years a prayer book that includes liturgies modelled on both 1928 and 1979 BCPs?

      Michael Frost

      January 9, 2013 at 23:59

    • Robert, I really think that you need to take a closer look at the several editions of the BCP, and not simply the English version of 1662. The oldest BCP of 1548 has all the things that you mention, the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei and includes prayers to the BVM and for the dead (see the beginning of the Canon); whilst the editions of the American, Scottish and Canadian BCP all contain prayers for the dead in the “Prayer for the whole State of Christ’s Church” (which is a rephrasing of the first part of the canon of 1548).

      I would also strongly advise a reading of the “Prayer of Humble Access” as well. whose theology of reception is very, very close to the Orthodox teaching of synergy.

      Dale

      January 10, 2013 at 01:29

      • Dale, I suspect the issue for Robert is likely that these groups don’t quite believe exactly what the RCC teaches? Say in regard to prayers for the dead (i.e., purgatory and indulgences). Or the liturgy, “the mass” (being offered on behalf of the dead). Or the real presence in the eucharist (transubstantiation). Luther and the Lutheran Confessions are crystal clear that they preserve the liturgy, though not for the dead, and that they believe, preach, and teach the real presence, but not transubstantiation. I think Robert would be quite pleasantly surprised by the 1958 Lutheran common liturgy having all the right historical components, and how similiar it is in many respects to the New Order liturgy. I wonder if he has compared the ELCA’s 2006 liturgy to the New Order.

        Michael Frost

        January 10, 2013 at 03:40

      • I suspect tht where Mr Williams and I start from is that whatever our personal preferences as to particular forms of words, incidentals of rite, choice of music, when we attend Mass celebrated in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest, his sacrifice and ours becomes the body and blood of Christ offered to God in communion with the whole of the Church. But for us, what is done in other ecclesial bodies, be it Anglican, Lutheran, or any one of the 57+ varieties of those separated from Rome, may well be a means of grace for those participating, may well use beautiful language, whatever, but absent holy orders we can recognise, absent communion with Rome, what takes place is not something we can recognise as the sacrifice of Holy Mass and tinkering with the forms of words will not make it so.

        The Book of Divine Worship cobbled together elements taken from the BCP and a not particularly good translation of the Roman Canon. We await in hope for the form of Holy Mass being worked on by the interdicasterial commission Anglicanae Traditiones which may remedy some of the infelicities in the BDW.

        Mourad

        January 10, 2013 at 06:21

      • There was no BCP in 1548!

        Even the 1549 has no intercession of saints and prayers for the dead, or oblation.It only lasted 3 years.

        The definitive book is 1662, 98 per cent 1552 and 1559. Solidly Protestant.

        Even the original 1789 ECUSA book is 95 per cent 1662.

        The Reformation theology can not be compared to Vatican Two.

        taht is why teh Anglo catholiocs had to supplement it with their Missals…a tradition only going back 150 years and as I point out never the Anglican mainstream.

        Robert ian Williams

        January 10, 2013 at 08:48

      • Robert, From the BCP 1549 (Rev. Gibson, Everyman’s Library 1910, reprinted 1964), the much more expansive Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church, which is AFTER the proper preface & the Sanctus & Benedictus, and connects directly to the Eucharistic Canon:

        “… And chiefly in the glorious and moste blessed virgin Mary, mother of they sonne Jesu Christe our Lorde and God, and in the holy Patriarches, Prophetes, Apostles and Martyrs, whose examples (O Lorde) and stedfastnes in they fayth, and kepying they holy commaundementes, graunt us to folowe. We commend unto thy mercye (O Lorde) all other they seruanuntes, which are departed hence from us, with the signe of faith, and nowe do reste in the slepe of peace: Graut unto them, we beseche thee, they mercy, and euverlasting peace, and that, at the day of the generall resurreccion, we and all they which bee of the misticall body of thy sonne, may altogether be set on his right hand, and heare that his most ioyfull voyce: Come unto me….”

        Michael Frost

        January 10, 2013 at 16:14

    • Robert, Have you ever compared the New Order liturgy to the 2006 ELCA liturgy?

      You should read the 1958 common Lutheran liturgy, a product of over a decade of work done before Vatican II. The zenith of Lutheran liturgics. This liturgy has:

      Invocation, Confession of Sins, Introit, Gloria Patri, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, optional OT reading, optional Psalm, Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia, Gospel, Creed, Hymn, Sermon, Offertory, Prayer of the Church, Thankgiving w/Hymn, Proper Preface, Sanctus, Eucharistic Canon, Lord’s Prayer, Agnus Dei, The Communion, The Post-Communion, Nunc Dimittis, The Prayer, Salutation, Benedicamus, and The Benediction.

      Michael Frost

      January 10, 2013 at 16:25

    • Dale

      January 10, 2013 at 20:58

      • Dale, The genesis of this specific work is fascinating. Goes to the high water mark of Reformation German liturgics. From Manschreck (1965):

        “Cranmer used The Consultation of [Archbishop] Hermann of Cologne, drawn up by Bucer and Melancthon in 1543 for the reformation of the Cologne diocese, as the basis for his Order of the Communion of 1548. … The Consultation appeared in England in German 1543, in Latin, 1545, and in English in 1547 and 1548.”

        Archbishop Hermann is a most fascinating person within the early Reformation Era. He was attempting to reform his diocese (inviting both Bucer, 1542, & Melanchthon, 1543, to help him), but his Chapter turned against him, preferred charges before emperor and pope, and he was deposed in 1546. Most of the eucharistic work was Bucer’s.

        Michael Frost

        January 10, 2013 at 21:26

      • Dale, And I forgot to mention that of course Bucer later goes to England in 1549, teaches at Cambridge, and works with Cranmer/Anglican Reformers in ways that help produce the 1552 BCP.

        Michael Frost

        January 10, 2013 at 21:32

  10. Here’s a fun activity that will make everyone uncomfortable!

    Get a Jew and a Christian together and ask them “Is Jesus Divine?”

    It’s obviously a “Yes or No” question, and you’re bound to get two different answers. -Something- must be the reason as to why Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. Therefore, it’s possible that: There is only one right answer. or they’re both wrong.

    They can’t be both right, because if “Yes” and “No” are both right, then it’s not a stretch to say Yes = No, but that is logically false. Yes is yes; No is no. Therefore, when given the possibility that something either is “Yes” or “No”, it cannot be “Both” but it can be “Neither” for the reason that the question asked may rest on faulty foundations and/or assumptions, like “Is there such a thing as divinity?” or “Did Jesus exist?”

    Assuming that we are all Christians here, it’s a foregone conclusion that we believe in the divinity of Christ. So our answer is “Yes”, but our imaginary Jew must necessarily say “no”. One cannot but imagine the short distance from the denial of the divinity of Christ towards atheism. For if Christ did not exist, or it is true that Jesus was nothing really remarkable, and that the empty tomb is the result of the followers grave robbing.

    It still doesn’t say anything about the willingness of Jesus’ supposed followers to die for His sake.

    Ioannes

    January 10, 2013 at 00:50

  11. TheBCP of 1552 is the definitive model.That is why no official liturgy of teh Church of England to this day does not offer prayers for the dead.

    Prayer for the dead is unnecessary as there is no purgatory according to Cranmer..read his Book of Homilies.

    Note how in 1549 the dead are already at rest and there is no direct invocation of saints either.

    Something may resemble truth and yet be an undermining of it. Even Calvinists talk of a real presence in the heart/soul of the believer.

    Robert ian Williams

    January 12, 2013 at 11:11

  12. This thread appears to have gone off-topic somehow. Not that this is necessaritly a bad thing.

    But we did start with a very serious question: how should Catholics, and indeed other Christians, conduct themselves in relation to Jews and Muslims. “Lumen Gentium” sets out relevant teaching of the Catholic Church?

    We have to acknowledge out past failings. No person with any serious knowledge of history can deny that great wrongs were done to Jews by people calling themselves Christians, among them the propagation of the blood libel, the expulsion of Jews from various supposedly Christian countries, the imposition of civil disabilities, attempts at forced conversions etc, the holocaust.

    And lest anyone think all this is from the dim and distant past, let me add that I was quite seriously taught in 1950′s England that the Jews were accursed of God and condemmed to wander the earth because of their role in the Crucifixion of Our Lord! [I of course accept that for some of today's readers, the 1950's may well be regarded as "the dim and distant past".]

    And lest those in the New World and elsewhere, think they have no responsibility for the Holocaust, they might reflect on the refusal of the USA and others to issue visas to Jews seeking to escape, and the willingness of the USA to do business with the Nazi regime until the USA belatedly entered WW2 – and even then some were willing to trade with the enemy.

    Likewise the historical categorisation of Muslims as “infedel” and events such as the crusades and the re-conquista are nothing to be proud of.

    We can recognise that there are some pretty nasty people out there who have been brainwashed into a pervision of Islam and that that they are rightly to be condemned and brought under control. But we also need to recognise that there was a time when that perversion was actually encouraged for the purposes of a proxy war with the Soviet Union and that countries in the Muslim world have also paid a heavy price for that. We can also remind ourselves that there is a lot of propaganda being put out losts of people with particular agendas.

    We can also recognise that not all countries in the world have reached the same stage of development and if religious toleration only became a reality in Victorian England, it might take newer states some time to catch up.

    We should start with the recognition that Jews Christians and Muslims all worship the same One God and that recognition alone imposes on us an obligation to behave charitably one to the other and to do as we would be done by.

    If I might make a suggestion, that involves a recognision that not all Jews support the more extreme posiiton of the Likud, not all Muslims are Wahhabi fundamentalists and not all Christians are “Rapture Ready” and we should be wary of generalisations.

    Mourad

    January 12, 2013 at 12:22


Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 909 other followers