Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1587605' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:53 PM']I deny absolutely that the state of the faith was "radically changed," because the faith is immutable. The Old Testament patriarchs and prophets believed in Christ (i.e., in the pre-incarnate Logos), and they worshipped the Holy Trinity.[/quote]

Dude then help me out in my discussion with ReyB in the Debate Table...PLEASE...

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=71169&st=120&start=120"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...0&start=120[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587647' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:11 PM']I agree, but because it is intangible and can at best be personally sensed I used an intellectual example to demonstrate. But nonetheless, what good is recognizing the baptism of non-Catholics if we are not at least willing to recognize their participation in grace to some extent -- and their relationship to us by virtue of our sharing in that grace (which yes, is nothing less than a participation in God's uncreated life and glory).[/quote]
Intellectual activity is important, but faith involves an intuitive gift of grace. Thus, neither you nor I can cause someone else to have faith.

What you have done in this conversation is to move from talking about the Rabbinic theological system, which is an objective thing, to the subjective belief of individuals. You and I can judge the former, but the latter can only be judged by God.

Thus, I stand by what I said earlier, Rabbinic Judaism is a false religion.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1587662' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:18 PM']Intellectual activity is important, but faith involves an intuitive gift of grace. Thus, neither you nor I can cause someone else to have faith.

What you have done in this conversation is to move from talking about the Rabbinic theological system, which is an objective thing, to the subjective belief of individuals. You and I can judge the former, but the latter can only be judged by God.

Thus, I stand by what I said earlier, Rabbinic Judaism is a false religion.[/quote]

My point is that the likelihood of that subjective situation is very real and must be taken into consideration if we are to be honest and respectful of the Jews. Yes, objectively Rabbinical Judaism is a religion holding to significant error. I disagree that is has completely cut itself off from a relationship with the Old Covenant, and therefore should be recognized as completely cut off from us. Is Rabbinal Judiasm sufficient for salvation? No. Do they worship the same God as we? Yes, absolutely. Is that a substantial tie that should be recognized, especially in those who have not explicitly rejected the Catholic faith? Absolutely. Anything less is simply dishonest.

But my good friend, I believe we must agree to disagree at this point. We have already ridden this dead horse beyond the intended scope of this thread and further risk the need to dodge tomatos from our fellow phatmassers. I must admit, I enjoy talking about such deep topics with you again!

[KnightofChrist]

There is no practicing Jew alive today.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587683' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:29 PM']My point is that the likelihood of that subjective situation is very real and must be taken into consideration if we are to be honest and respectful of the Jews. Yes, objectively Rabbinical Judaism is a religion holding to significant error. I disagree that is has completely cut itself off from a relationship with the Old Covenant, and therefore should be recognized as completely cut off from us. Is Rabbinal Judiasm sufficient for salvation? No. Do they worship the same God as we? Yes, absolutely. Is that a substantial tie that should be recognized, especially in those who have not explicitly rejected the Catholic faith? Absolutely. Anything less is simply dishonest.

But my good friend, I believe we must agree to disagree at this point. We have already ridden this dead horse beyond the intended scope of this thread and further risk the need to dodge tomatos from our fellow phatmassers. I must admit, I enjoy talking about such deep topics with you again![/quote]
Rabbinic Judaism is simply a man made system, so I have no qualms in saying that it is cut off from the true faith.

You are right about one thing; we will have to agree to disagree.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Innocent]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1587619' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:32 AM']I once believed something akin to this, but as an Eastern Christian I no longer hold that faith is a discursive form of knowledge; instead, faith involves an experiential participation in God's uncreated life and glory through grace.[/quote]

Sorry for the hijack, but that's a beautiful definition of faith. I never thought of faith that way. Thanks for sharing this. Can you recommend any writings on the net where the Eastern Christian view of faith is explained in more detail? Thanks.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587683' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:29 PM']...We have already ridden this dead horse beyond the intended scope of this thread and further risk the need to dodge tomatos from our fellow phatmassers....[/quote]

Watch out!

[abercius24]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1587687' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:30 PM']There is no practicing Jew alive today.[/quote]

That is a nice and tiddy academic statement, but not a practical one at all.

At what point did the Jews no longer be Jews? What is the coming of Christ? No, because we recognize that Christ Himself was a Jew who followed all prescriptions of the law perfectly throughout His life. Was it after Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter? No, because Jesus recognized the Seat of Moses in Caiphas when He adjured Him to testify at His trial, thereby recognizing Caiphas' authority as High Priest. Was it after Pentecost? No, because the Early Church struggled with questions as to whether or not Gentile converts needed to follow the Jewish prescriptions of the Old Covenant as did the Jewish Christians. Was it after the Romans assissinated all members of the Jewish priesthood and destroyed the Temple? Perhaps for those Jews who participated in Temple worship amidst the priests. But what about the regular "Joe Schmo" Jew who lived too far from Jerusalem and never made enough money to travel and make an offering at the Temple? The only place of worship that formed their daily lives was the synogogue. And the synogogues never disappeared. Was it when the Rabbis joined at the Council of Jamnia and rejected many elements of the Christian faith -- possibly recognizing many Anti-Catholic elements of the Talmud? Yes, maybe for the high ranking Rabbis at Jamnia. But not for the poor, local rabbi and his congregation whose lives were completely unchanged by Jamnia. To them the decisions of the council would have been little more than interesting news. THEIR SPIRITUAL LIVES WERE UNCHANGED OTHERWISE.

So yes, academically speaking, Rabbinical Judaism has rejected Catholicism and may have a history of anti-Catholic doctrine. Academically speaking, the Jews as a whole have lessened their ties to the Historical Church. But doctrines, beliefs and practices are no more than theoretical concepts if they are not understood from the perspective where they ultimately matter -- at the level of the average believer. As far as the average Jew is concerned, they are attending the same synogogue worship and seder meals as did the Patriarchs. They read of the same Pentateuch as those who descended from Moses. And they have a bloodline and heritage that traces back to the heros that we only read about in the Bible. On a macro level, Judaism has changed substantially. On the individual level, the Jews are practicing the same faith as they did in the time of Christ. And I am offended by those who can be so cavalier as to disregard the relationship they continue to have with the Lord despite their ignorance of the Christian Faith. We gotta keep things in perspective and remember that people matter more than academic postulations.

[Veridicus]

I am completely uneducated on all of this information about Judaism...I've got some homework to do...

[Chiquitunga]

[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/behind-the-scenes-sspx-things-are-brighter-than-they-may-seem/"]http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/behind-the-...-they-may-seem/[/url]

[Aloysius]

All this harsh talk against the SSPX reminds me of the elder brother complaining about the prodigal son. Why should they have an important voice within the Church so shortly after returning? because we rejoice that they return and need that voice for the sake of bridging the gap that the 60's generation tried to forge between the modern Church and the traditional Church

The traditional mass was never suppressed according to the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI. However, the bishops throughout the world acted as if it were supressed. Every act of suppressing the traditional mass they made, because the Church herself had not done so and they had no authority to do so, was in a way a schismatic act pushing groups away. Both sides bear the blame. In Roman circles they say that lifting the excommuncations is considered a much easier task than the freeing of the traditional mass was... ie we can expect that Rome will have no problem lifting the excommunications of the four bishops as well as the excommunication of lefebvre when the SSPX re-enter communion.

abericus, it is more than a mere academic postulation. we believe that the patriarchs experienced the worship of the Blessed Trinity and that Rabbinical Judaism does not... that is hugely important and to shrug it off because individuals believe they worship the same way as the patriarchs did doesn't change that. in any event, the charges of anti-semetism against the SSPX as a whole or against the Early Church Fathers are largely unfounded.

comparing the SSPX to every heretical group under the sun doesn't make it true. I don't think the situation has any perfectly accurate parallels in history but it would parallel St. Athanasius more than it would parallel the arians, except that the SSPX had a degree of error involved that I do not believe the saint had... but the bishops of the Church, the Pope and even Ratzinger himself, had a degree of error involved as well. Read Summorum Pontificum: it pretty much says as much. The pope and the bishops were treating the traditional mass as if it were suppressed and they were not cracking down hard enough on those who would twist the words of the council to their liberal agendas throughout the world (probably because there were too many of them to effectively combat it) and this whole atmosphere pushed the SSPX away as much as they moved themselves away.

Rome is offering a personal prelature, ie an important status within the Church (ie they're going to slaughter the fattened calf for them), and will likely lift all five excommunications (excommunicatios can be lifted post-mortum either retroactively or from the point of the lifting, which would likely apply to the good archbishop in purgatory if they did it from the time of the lifting)... Benedict has made no secret about the fact that he regrets that he was unable to stop the schism when it happened and you better believe he's not so prideful as to not think both sides made big mistakes.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']That is a nice and tiddy academic statement, but not a practical one at all.

At what point did the Jews no longer be Jews?[/quote]
All the early Christians were Jews, and Christianity is the true Judaism, because it is the continuation of the religion of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. So anyone who rejected the Messiah, at that very moment ceased being a Jew. In other words, Christians are the true sons of Abraham, because we have embraced the faith of Abraham, as he himself lived it.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it after Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter? No, because Jesus recognized the Seat of Moses in Caiaphas when He adjured Him to testify at His trial, thereby recognizing Caiaphas' authority as High Priest.[/quote]
This is nonsensical to me as an Eastern Christian, because I do not recognize that there is a distinction to be made between the authority of the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, and the authority of Moses; instead, the bishops truly possess the authority of Moses, since it has been subsumed into the powers of the historic episcopate according to Apostolic Tradition.


[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it after Pentecost? No, because the Early Church struggled with questions as to whether or not Gentile converts needed to follow the Jewish prescriptions of the Old Covenant as did the Jewish Christians.[/quote]
You are confusing the Judaizing heretics with the Jewish Christians. In fact, all Christians can be called Jews, so long as you are speaking about the faith of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets, for the Christian faith is identical to the faith of the holy ancestors of Christ.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it after the Romans assassinated all members of the Jewish priesthood and destroyed the Temple? Perhaps for those Jews who participated in Temple worship amidst the priests.[/quote]
The Herodian Temple was destroyed, but the true Temple, i.e., the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ, was not destroyed, nor will it ever be destroyed. The Church is the true Israel, it is the true People of God, it is the place where the divine glory resides, and it offers unfailing worship to the Triune God.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']And the synagogues never disappeared.[/quote]
[i]Ekklesia[/i] and [i]synagogue[/i] both mean "assembly" or "congregation," but the Church is the true synagogue, and not the Rabbinic synagogues organized in opposition to the true faith.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']Was it when the Rabbis joined at the Council of Jamnia and rejected many elements of the Christian faith -- possibly recognizing many Anti-Catholic elements of the Talmud? Yes, maybe for the high ranking Rabbis at Jamnia.[/quote]
The Council of Javneh (Jamnia) can be seen as the moment when Rabbinic Judaism – as opposed to Biblical Judaism – was formed, and it was formed precisely in opposition to the true faith.

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']But not for the poor, local rabbi and his congregation whose lives were completely unchanged by Jamnia. To them the decisions of the council would have been little more than interesting news. THEIR SPIRITUAL LIVES WERE UNCHANGED OTHERWISE.[/quote]
You continue to confuse the subjective knowledge of individuals with objective reality. Of course the spiritual lives of those who followed the Rabbis into heresy were changed, and they were changed for the worse, because they no longer had a true living experience of Triune God in worship. Now, whether they knew it or not subjectively, which is irrelevant to our present discussion, they had in fact left behind the faith of their Father Abraham, because they no longer worshipped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and as scripture says, "No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). Thus, I will simply reiterate what I have said before: Rabbinic Judaism is a man made religion; while Christianity is the revealed religion of both the Old and the New Testaments.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1587850' date='Jun 30 2008, 10:56 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' post='1587619' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:02 PM']
I once believed something akin to this, but as an Eastern Christian I no longer hold that faith is a discursive form of knowledge; instead, faith involves an experiential participation in God's uncreated life and glory through grace.[/quote]
Sorry for the hijack, but that's a beautiful definition of faith. I never thought of faith that way. Thanks for sharing this. Can you recommend any writings on the net where the Eastern Christian view of faith is explained in more detail? Thanks.
[/quote]
I do not know of any internet sites that discuss this topic in any detail, but I can recommend some books that touch on this subject:

Fr. Georges Florovsky, [u]Revelation, Philosophy and Theology[/u], translated by Richard Haugh.

Jean Cardinal Danielou, [u]From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings[/u], translated by Herbert Musurillo.

and

Martin Laird, [u]Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith: Union, Knowledge, and Divine Presence[/u], Oxford Early Christian Studies series.

[XIX]

[quote]The traditional mass was never suppressed according to the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI. However, the bishops throughout the world acted as if it were supressed. Every act of suppressing the traditional mass they made, because the Church herself had not done so and they had no authority to do so, was in a way a schismatic act pushing groups away. Both sides bear the blame.[/quote] This I don't get. How is it Rome's fault if the bishops surpressed the traditional Mass?

[quote]In Roman circles they say that lifting the excommuncations is considered a much easier task than the freeing of the traditional mass was... ie we can expect that Rome will have no problem lifting the excommunications of the four bishops as well as the excommunication of lefebvre when the SSPX re-enter communion.[/quote] I'll believe it when I see it. Thee's really no way to know for certain until it happens.

[quote]the charges of anti-semetism against the SSPX as a whole or against the Early Church Fathers are largely unfounded.[/quote] true.

[quote]comparing the SSPX to every heretical group under the sun doesn't make it true. I don't think the situation has any perfectly accurate parallels in history but it would parallel St. Athanasius more than it would parallel the arians, except that the SSPX had a degree of error involved that I do not believe the saint had... but the bishops of the Church, the Pope and even Ratzinger himself, had a degree of error involved as well.[/quote]The error is not the point. The point is that Levebvre was disobedient to higher authority. They challenged, they voiced their concerns adamantly, they made it clear they weren't completely on board with this whole thing. I get that. That's fine.

Building your own society against the wishes of the Pope is not okay.

[quote]Read Summorum Pontificum: it pretty much says as much. The pope and the bishops were treating the traditional mass as if it were suppressed and they were not cracking down hard enough on those who would twist the words of the council to their liberal agendas throughout the world (probably because there were too many of them to effectively combat it) and this whole atmosphere pushed the SSPX away as much as they moved themselves away.[/quote]
I'll read it, but nobody forced the SSPX to go out and form their own society. The Church probably could have handled it better, but it was ultimately the SSPX's decision. The Church wasn't doing enough to crack down on liberalism? Maybe they could have done more. But that's motivation for splintering off? I'm sorry, I can't buy that. The SSPX takes the lion's share of the blame here. A questionable interpretation of V2 is not nearly as grevious as splintering off.

[quote]Rome is offering a personal prelature, ie an important status within the Church (ie they're going to slaughter the fattened calf for them), and will likely lift all five excommunications (excommunicatios can be lifted post-mortum either retroactively or from the point of the lifting, which would likely apply to the good archbishop in purgatory if they did it from the time of the lifting)... Benedict has made no secret about the fact that he regrets that he was unable to stop the schism when it happened and you better believe he's not so prideful as to not think both sides made big mistakes.[/quote] Leaving the Church (in any capacity) is a far greater mistake than anything Rome did. But hey, I wouldn't be dissapointed if the excommunications were lifted. I just don't see it happening.

I regret the fact that my friend lost her faith, and I'll even accept responsibility for part of it. But that doesn't excuse her in any capacity. It was still her choice, just as it was the SSPX's choice.

The JP2 told Lefebvre not to found the SSPX, or else he would be excommunicated.
Lefebvre founded the SSPX anyway.
Lefebvre was excommunicated.

1+1+1=3

Edited July 1, 2008 by XIX

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1587978' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:08 AM']But doctrines, beliefs and practices are no more than theoretical concepts if they are not understood from the perspective where they ultimately matter -- at the level of the average believer.[/quote]
I completely disagree. The dogmas and doctrines of the faith are in fact immutable experiential encounters with God, and the customs and practices that arise within the Church's liturgical life over the course of the centuries are expressions of the divinely inspired Tradition, which they convey to us as a living reality. Tradition (even at the level of particular customs), dogma, and doctrine, are not reducible to abstract concepts; instead, they are the very living experience of God, who always remains essentially beyond human thought and predication, while He simultaneously condescends to be experienced through His manifesting energies.

The quotation below explains the Eastern Christian position on this issue in a more comprehensive manner than my own comments above:

[size=3][quote]Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of "the development of dogma." Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable "rule of faith" ("regula fidei;" o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fullness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that "spiritual Vision" which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation.

[Fr. Georges Florovsky, "Revelation, Philosophy and Theology," this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6 (München, 1931). Translated from the German by Richard Haugh][/quote][/size]

Once again, your posts tend to confuse subjective intellectual knowledge with objective experiential reality.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Apotheoun