...words on the subject of Catholics and Jews here...
and I draw the attention of some of my readers to this...especially the chap who wrote offering to send me a copy of an anti-Jewish diatribe. Please note: the Church specifically denounces material of that kind. In this Year of Faith the documents of Vatican II are being given renewed attention and invested with renewed and long-term significance. Read the link just given, and also here...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do not know much about the SSPX so do not know what some of their priests may have said that is potentially offensive about the Jews. I assume it would be something along the lines of Christ's Passion brings forth a new covenant surpressing the old. But the question I would ask is twofold: 1. if Vatican II was a pastoral council this must mean there was no change in the church's teaching; and therefore 2. if the SSPX are following a pre-Vatican II mentality are they actually in error?
No - the offensive comment was much nastier than that. It was not "potentially offensive": it was offensive, and referred to allegations that have been specifically denounced by the Church. And the SSPX are not "following a pre-Vatican II mentality" but broke with the Church by ordaining bishops specifically outside of Church authority.Both before, during, and after Vatican II that is an act of disobedience, and Vatican II did not and could not change that. For the teachings of Vatican II - and Vatican I and other Church councils - go to the Vatican website. We have been urged by the Holy Father to study the teachings of Vatican II as part of our celebrating this Year of Faith. You will also find the Catechism of the Catholic Church useful - it quotes extensively from Vatican II. You may find there is a course of study that you could do to help you: the Maryvale Institute is excellent.
Vatican II didn't formally condemn any views as heresies. But no council really changes Church teaching, it clarifies it, responds to questions raised about it, and makes adminstrative, disciplinary and other adjustments. The idea that Vatican II can somehow be ignored because it was mainly pastoral in nature isn't a very Catholic one.
The church has always taught that the duty of charity extends to Jews. However sometimes this was ignored, sometimes even nodded at by the hierachy. (Though the Papacy has an extremely good record of defending Jewish rights. The infamous blood libel was stopped by a Pope.) It's a bit like the purchase of ecclesiastical appointments. Theoretically this wasn't supposed to happen, often it did, with Popes themselves often pocketing the bribes. But at Trent (I think) it was agreed that it would no longer be tolerated. The practice was never right, though we have to judge those who indulged in it in the context of the times. Similarly with virulently anti-Jewish material.
Post a Comment