Archive for the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ Category

This Week in Novus Ordo ‘Holocaust Denial’ Anathemas

May 18, 2012

“… negation of the Shoah, … is a position that has no place in the Catholic Church. It is very clear … The Holy Father has spoken clearly about this position of Williamson, that it’s not possible, there is no place for deniers in the Catholic Church.” (“Catholics must accept Vatican II, including on Judaism, Cardinal says,” Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, May 17, 2012)

Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, sat in at the recent meeting of the “Bilateral Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Counterfeit Israel and the ‘Holy’ See’s Commission for Religious Relations with ‘The Jews'” and “expressed joy at the continuity of its work as a blessing for both communities and for humanity.”

We documented that a speaker at this meeting, which Cardinal Koch would call a “blessing to humanity,” was former chief economist of the bank of ‘Israel’ Rabbi Dr. Meir Tamari who strongly upholds the teaching of Orthodox Judaism that ‘Jews’ should receive interest-free loans while non-‘Jews’ should pay usury on loans HERE.

People, wake up. Submission to ‘The Holocaust’ can’t save anyone’s soul. Usury imposed according to a racial double-standard is not a blessing to humanity. These are curses of the worst kind. Anyone with the most minimal understanding of the Gospel and sense of temporal and spiritual self-preservation would run from this as fast as them legs could take them.

Also see:

Auschwitz: The Golgotha of the Modern Church

Advertisements

Vatican ‘Jew’ Enforces Vatican II

May 4, 2012
This should be read in tandem with: Opus Pharisaei

“One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied” to anyone who does not accept the [Second Vatican] council’s teaching and “that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to ‘Nostra Aetate’ in particular.”

Last year we noted that the Israeli tribalist Fr. David Jaeger was installed as a prelate auditor of the Roman Rota, the highest court of the Catholic Church. We noted Jaeger’s candid admission that at the Vatican court he would be as loyal to the people of Counterfeit Israel and the nation of Counterfeit Israel as any other Israeli working for a supranational body, mentioning the interesting example of Israelis working at the International Monetary Fund as a reference as to how his tribal loyalty would manifest itself as he works at the Vatican’s highest court. We appreciate the candor because it reveals the farce of the court historian portrayal of the court ‘Jew’ as a turncoat and lays bare the previously well hidden reality.

Jaeger was a key figure in the Vatican’s official recognition of Counterfeit Israel of 1993, a typically raw deal where the gangster state was afforded undeserved credibility by the venerable 2000 year-old Church institution and Catholics got nothing except spat upon. This can only last so long, however. Whatever residual credibility the Vatican may be coasting on presently that was not lost in the pedophilia scandal is being squandered entirely in the massive Zionist vortex of consumption.

Jaeger’s suggestion that without Vatican II and Nostra Aetate ‘The Jews’ are in danger of annihilation by violent mobs of ‘non-Jews’ fueled by Christian theological hatred of ‘Jews’ is itself a form of hatred of the historical Church and the Christian people; a blood libel. Always the double standard. And Jaeger’s appeals to victimhood as he sits at the head of the Vatican’s highest court inciting an inquisition against Catholics strains chutzpah beyond most previous wild examples.

Jeager’s work, like that of the misnamed ‘Opus Dei,’ is the relativisation away of the the Church’s past authoritative teachings and making an absolute out of a  document lobbied for by haters of the Church and the Gospel--Jules Isaac, B’nai B’rith, AJC, WJC, etc., etc,–and co-written by a rabbi who admitted that he wanted to attack Christians’ souls.

Church should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says

ROME (CNS) — The Second Vatican Council’s teaching, particularly on Judaism and other religions, is rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Bible, and the Catholic Church should not offer concessions to those who do not accept its teaching, said an Israeli-born Franciscan who serves as a judge on a top Vatican court.

Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, defined as worrying a tendency, “here and there in Catholicism, to look leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the council, including the declaration ‘Nostra Aetate'” on the relationship of the church to non-Christian religions.

Msgr. Jaeger, who grew up in a Jewish family, spoke about “Nostra Aetate” during a conference on the Second Vatican Council at Rome’s Opus Dei-run Holy Cross University May 3-4.

“While often presented as if it were absolutely new,” he said, the teaching of “Nostra Aetate” “perfectly corresponds to the most ancient intuitions of Christian theology” when it affirms “there can be, and in particular cases, are elements of truth and holiness” in other religions, he said. In addition, the document emphasized that Judaism [the religion which teaches Jesus got what he deserved at Calvary] has a special status, which “already was extensively explained by St. Paul, particularly in the Epistle to the Romans” [a ridiculous falsehood. St. Paul addresses a remnant of Israelites, not the Pharisaic religion of Judaism that revels in responsibility for Jesus’ execution].

The council’s document explained the church’s “doctrine on Judaism, the only religion which, while not knowing Christ, has its origins in biblical revelation, which is why the church does not regard it simply as a ‘non-Christian religion,’ but ascribes to it a unique status,” Msgr. Jaeger said [falsely. Judaism has its origins in the Pharisees and the Mishnah and their making the Bible of no effect].

While recognizing the unique and special relationship between God and the Jewish people, he said, the council did not say say that Judaism was a “parallel path to salvation” and it did not deny that somehow, in the end, all salvation would be accomplished through Christ.

Obviously motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust, but also by centuries of injustices and persecution of Jews “by those who called themselves Christians and believed they therefore could justify their brutality, the declaration took care to severely condemn such conduct and to highlight the complete illegitimacy of supporting it with any reference to Christianity,” he said.

“The proof of Nostra Aetate’s effectiveness is that it seems strange to have to say it today,” the monsignor said.

However, he said, “One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied” to anyone who does not accept the council’s teaching and “that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to ‘Nostra Aetate’ in particular.”

“In fact,” he said, “the extreme gravity of the counter-witness of those who have, for centuries, abused the name of Christ and the term Christian to persecute and oppress the Jews must never be forgotten or underestimated in any way.”

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201832.htm 

Also see:

Opus Pharisaei

Opus Pharisaei

December 6, 2011
Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz, the Vicar General of Opus “Dei” (Opus Pharisaei, in truth) is one of Pope Benedict’s representatives in the theological discussions that took place between the SSPX and Rome from 2009-2011. The day after we commented on Bp. Fellay’s recent ‘interview’ and pointed to the discrepancy in Rome’s allowance for discussion of Vatican II teachings while anathematizing discussion of ‘The Holocaust,’ a work of artifice from Msgr. Fernando Ocáriz was published in the Pope’s journal, L’Osservatore Romano HERE.

This document contains a formula which amounts to relativistic tyranny:

The [Second Vatican] Council’s [innovative] doctrinal teachings require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. Precisely because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an act of faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” …

… A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council … These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will …

I take this as an answer to Proud Pharisee David Rosen’s self-interested insistence that Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium be considered “fundamental doctrines of the Church,” and that it be impossible to question them “without challenging the authority of the church.”

Those who know the religion of Judaism know what’s going on here. The rabbis “don’t listen to heavenly voices.” They say, “the Torah is not in heaven.” Their god says, “my sons have defeated me.” Their god is mutable; nothing more than a totem the possession of which gives them absolute, tyrannical authority which they use to innovate and enforce doctrines as needed, or to destroy and blot out problematic doctrines.

Expect much more of this kind of relativisation of perennial Church teaching enforced by absolute authority (at the service of the rabbis) as long as religious relations with the rabbis continue. And play close attention to how that authority is selectively enforced.

Also see:

Benedict’s “Hermeneutic of Continuity” and the Rabbinic “Genius”

Church Council Up for Discussion, Not "The Holocaust"

November 30, 2011
Traducción parcial al Español aquí: Radio Cristiandad

En Italiano: Andrea Carancini

SSPX Superior, Bishop Fellay has given an ‘interview’ in his familiar style intended to dispel suspicions raised by his secretive negotiations with the suspicious characters in Rome where “there is no lack of indiscretions!” The ‘interview’ doesn’t accomplish its goal.

The ‘interview’ is largely unremarkable: reassuring words, summary deflection of justified suspicion and criticism, summary dismissal of internet channels not under Fellay control, redirection of focus back onto an apparition claimed by 3 children in Portugal 100 years ago, reemploying the busywork of tens of millions of rosaries–all very familiar and predictable. The ‘interview’ can be read here:

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-superior-general-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-the-society-of-st-pius-x-and-the-doctrinal-preamble/

One item mentioned in the ‘interview’ is very relevant to us here. I quote:

“… leeway has been allowed for a ‘legitimate discussion’ about certain points of the [Second Vatican] Council.”

Note that the Novus Ordo Church allows ‘discussion’ of its own teaching. In this context, ‘discussion’ concerns doubts and outright denials. The SSPX denies that certain points contained within the authoritative documents of the Novus Ordo Church’s Second Vatican Council can be reconciled with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has allowed the SSPX to present its case to this effect in doctrinal ‘dialogues’ over the past two years. The Novus Ordo is now negotiating an arrangement to bring the SSPX into ‘full communion’ while allowing discussion of doubts of its own authoritative teachings. This was also stated in a February 2009 statement from the Pope’s Secretary of State:

“… the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to engage with the interested parties in examining outstanding questions, so as to attain a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems that caused this painful rupture.”

Note, however, that this typically lenient allowance pertaining to the Novus Ordo’s own teachings is immediately followed by a mandate in absolute terms virtually unseen in Rome in the past 100 years:

“The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father …

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah …”

Nota bene, it is not demanded that Bishop Williamson absolutely and unequivocally publicly distance himself from his doubts regarding relativistic Novus Ordo teaching on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism. No, these “outstanding questions” are open to “examination.” No such questions or examination can be countenanced in the absolutist realm of “The Holocaust,” however. Here we see the resurrection of the old ipse dixit and anathema that are otherwise entirely unheard of from Catholic prelates for nearly 100 years.

This is remarkable, is it not? In light of this, perhaps readers may understand where Rabbi Michael Berenbaum is coming from when he says, “As I observe young people in relativistic societies seeking an absolute for morals and values, they now can view the Holocaust as the transcendental move away from the relativistic, and up into the absolute …” How opportune for Rabbi Berenbaum and “The Holocaust” that the authorities of the Catholic Church hold “The Holocaust” to be absolute while Church teachings are ever increasingly relativised away.

Bishop Fellay certainly knows how to go with the relativist/absolutist flow of the Noahide Novus Ordo. Soon after the February 2009 statement from the Pope’s Secretary of State was issued, Bp. Fellay was interviewed in Der Speigel saying that he would cast Bp. Williamson out of the SSPX if he “denied” “The Holocaust” again:

SPIEGEL: So why don’t you exclude Williamson from the society?

Fellay: That will happen if he denies the Holocaust again.

Bp. Fellay was just blending in with Pope Benedict who a month earlier had admonished Catholics to not “forget or deny” “The Holocaust,” and Archbishop Reinhard Marx who proclaimed, “Every denial of the Holocaust must be punished harshly,” Cardinal Vingt-Trois who exclaimed, “Being a Catholic is radically incompatible with denying the Holocaust,” Cardinal Kasper announcing, “No Holocaust denial can be allowed or permitted, It’s absolutely clear that a Holocaust denier can’t have a room, a space in the Catholic Church.”

There may be space between the SSPX Superior and the Novus Ordo on religious liberty and a number of other matters, but where “The Holocaust” is concerned, which Rabbi Ignaz Maybaum said “replaced Golgotha” and Pope John Paul II said was “The Golgotha of the modern world,” Bp. Fellay and the Novus Ordo sing in perfect unison.

It seems to me a case of swallowing a very large camel while straining out gnats.

Suppressed SSPX Great Britain District Newsletter

November 4, 2011
District Superior’s Letter November 2011

My dear brethren

The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’ text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.

The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions; and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble document itself.

With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings included and improved the old!

It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding possible practical solutions for the Society.

So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism. Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis in the Church…

Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts with the Roman authorities.

In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to Catholic Tradition.

The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that of communications and the media.

* * *

The Assisi III meeting is taking place on the very day I write these few lines, at which occasion we are holding a day of reparation here at St George’s House, with all-day exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

The scandal of this inter-religious gathering can be resumed into three points:

i/ It commemorates and celebrates the scandal of Assisi I;

ii/ It replaces the Faith with religious liberty as the means to obtain world peace;

iii/ It promotes on a practical level relativism and religious indifference.

Original cached at:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UpPzFRVt7TYJ:www.sspx.co.uk/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D390:district-superiors-letter-november-2011%26catid%3D114:district-superiors-letter%26Itemid%3D86

Letter from SSPX Superior General Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson

October 13, 2011
UPDATED, PLEASE READ

I’ve received the following notice from Bp. Williamson:

Dear Maurice Pinay,

Please publish on the same blog on which you published the Sept 23 letter of Bishop Fellay to me, the following message —

The September 23 letter from Bishop Fellay to me, as posted on the Maurice Pinay blog, is authentic, but it was put on the Internet without my knowledge and without my permission. I sent a copy to friends to ask their advice or to tell them why I was not present at the Albano meeting, but never did I want that copy to appear in public. I have no idea who posted it, nor do I ask who did so.

Bishop Richard Williamson, London, 14 Oct. 2011

Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson

23 September, 2011

Your Excellency,

I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.

Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.

Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop. You considered that for the sake of the preaching and defence of the Faith you needed pay no attention, on the pretext that nobody had the right to stop a bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith. But such preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circumstances which may well call for superiors to intervene. Besides, no other bishop of the SSPX publishes a circular letter and considers himself thereby hindered from expressing himself.

Moreover the consequences of your attitude are harmful to the SSPX: you ooze distrust towards SSPX headquarters and the Superior General. You cannot help yourself communicating this feeling to those around you. No revolution could do a better job of undermining authority… and this you do in the name of a supposed possible betrayal on the part of the Superior General… That is very serious.

Especially when a certain number of indications show that your action is not confined to theory:

1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.

2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?

3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.

And you talk to us of being double tongued! As for the unity of the SSPX, the one most putting it in danger is yourself, your Excellency! Always in the name of defense of the Faith. In such a grave moment as the confrontation now taking place between ourselves and the Holy See, the outcome of which will be decisive for our own future and not without consequences for the entire Church, I ask you then, once more, to remain silent until further orders. If you were to refuse to heed this directive, it would mean both your not being invited to the Albano meeting and the starting of the canonical procedure leading to exclusion from the SSPX. So I await your reply.

All of this is most sad, and it has nothing to do with the confrontation just mentioned, whatever you may think. The loss of one of its bishops is one of the worst things that could happen to the SSPX. It depends entirely on you to spare it such a misfortune. Do believe, your Excellency, in my fervent prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
BpF.