Cardinal Koch: “If a group [sspx] does not accept the Council or the Magisterium, it should ask itself whether it is Catholic”

JEWS-CATHOLICS: CARD. KOCH (HOLY SEE), “UNTHINKABLE” TO QUESTION THE COUNCIL

“Absolutely not”: the Catholic Church cannot change her position on the Second Vatican Council and the Nostra Aetate Declaration “because she cannot question the Council. That is unthinkable. And the Holy Father cannot deny his Magisterium”. Card. Kurt Koch, President of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, commented in an interview with SIR on the “concerns” raised by the process of dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (Lefebvrians). “The Jews – the cardinal said – are our elder brothers: particularly in Benedict XVI’s vision of the unity of the two Testaments, we are inextricably linked with the Jews. This point is clear even in the light of the Council Declaration ‘Nostra Aetate’. There is no doubt in the Catholic Church that this Declaration is still valid today. It is rejected only by a small group, the Lefebvrians, who are opposed to ecumenical dialogue, relations with the Jews and religious freedom. The latter are actually key points in the Magisterium of the Holy Father, and if a group does not accept the Council or the Magisterium, it should ask itself whether it is Catholic. This is the fundamental question”. The cardinal then recalled what Fr. Lombardi said about bishop Fellay’s statements: “anti-Semitism in all its forms is a non-Christian act and the Catholic Church must fight this phenomenon with all her strength”.
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2013/01/15/cardinal-koch-if-a-group-sspx-does-not-accept-the-council-or-the-magisterium-it-should-ask-itself-whether-it-is-catholic/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

22 comments on “Cardinal Koch: “If a group [sspx] does not accept the Council or the Magisterium, it should ask itself whether it is Catholic”

  1. I guess Cdl Koch believes that the Pope has his own personal magisterium that can be different than previous magisteriums. Scary stuff.

  2. The proverbial has long left the point of impact with the fan. Now, it falleth like the gentle rain…. polluting ponds, streams, puddles. Everywhere innocents go.

  3. This also happens to demonstrate another flanking maneuvre by the Modernists in Rome: Having successfully divided the Society, they will now proceed to attack both sides with sheer, theologically worthless intimidation until they trample every last shred of resistance to their grotesque heresy.

    Your Eminence, Catholics are FORBIDDEN to obey YOUR masters! Your real job is to CONVERT them, and not to propagate their Christophobic mania.

  4. What is absurd to me is the “Jews” of today have almost nothing in common religiously with the Jews of Christ’s time. There is no sacrifice by today’s Jews, no temple, no priesthood, and no sprinkling of blood, which was the requirement for the forgiveness of sins under the Old Covenent. Rather, most Jews of today follow the Talmud which was written hundreds of years after Christ, and is a book which insults the BVM and the Catholic Church. So aside from genetic history, and cultural identity, the religion of most of today’s Jews is nothing like the religion at the time of Christ. How then can they be our “elder brothers in the faith”?

    Our real “elder brothers” died before Christ was born or converted to the Catholic Church after His death and resurrection.

    It is an absolute heresy to assert that the Jews of today still have any kind of valid convenent before God. The curtain of the Temple was torn in two and that was the end of the Old Covenent. To assert that the Jews of today still have a valid covenent or a means of salvation without believing in Christ, is to deny Christ’s Passion and Death. It is to deny a long list of Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Popes of the Church as well as councils. It is just absurd in the extreme.

  5. funny thing is that nostra aetate is one of the docs that the sspx simply states that it would accept in accordance with Tradition.

    so I wonder what is objectionable about that?

    • Uh, oh! Ned, old chap, if I may?

      Here’s a couple of pull quotes from an article published on the SSPX website, authored by John Vennari, dated 11 January this year:

      “…Cardinal Koch, today’s head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity – hand-picked by Benedict XVI for that prestigious Vatican post – celebrates Nostra Aetata as the “crucial compass” of all endeavors towards Catholic-Jewish dialogue. In his May 16 speech, Koch refers to it as the “foundation document,” the Magna Carta of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Judaism. He calls Nostra Aetate a text that effected “a fundamental re-orientation of the Catholic Church” following the Council.[3]

      Nostra Aetate was designed to be only the beginning of something much bigger. It is the culmination of more than two decades of work by modernist-leaning theologians who were determined to side-step traditional theology and establish a new basis of relations between Catholics and Jews.[4]

      The key text of Nostra Aetate on this point is in the document’s fourth chapter:

      Given this great spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jews, it is the wish of this sacred Council to foster and recommend a mutual knowledge and esteem… the Jews should not be presented as rejected by God or accursed, as though this follows from Scripture… The Church… deplores all hatred, persecution and other manifestations of anti-semitism, whatever the period and whoever was responsible.

      Of course, no Catholic may favor the mistreatment of Jews or of anyone else. This is a given. What’s troubling, however, is the ambiguity contained in the phrase, “The Jews should not be presented as rejected by God or accursed, as though this follows from Scripture.”

      This phrase lacks necessary distinctions.”

      “…Yet we know that Jews and Christians do not worship the same God. Jews reject the Trinitarian God. They reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. It is Saint John, the Apostle of Love, who writes: “He who honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father, who hath sent Him.” (John 5:23)

      Finally, as noted, the new approach to be a “common witness” to God along with Jews implicitly demands we no longer speak of the need for their conversion to Christ’s one true Church for salvation. It effectively tells Jews they have the moral freedom to live their lives as if Jesus Christ were a fraud and imposter.

      In fact, Cardinal Koch briefly mentions the sticky problem of Jews not accepting Christ, but deals with it in manner that defies reason. Koch says in his May 16 speech, “That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.”[27]

      Is it possible for a Cardinal’s statement to be any more insipid? The truth is: our post-Conciliar churchmen have mangled traditional Catholic doctrine, and constructed a false theology to serve the new god of “Jewish-Catholic relations”. These churchmen have adopted contradictions and impossible conundrums, and then try to camouflage the disaster by wrapping it in a pious shroud of “unfathomable divine mystery.”

      Vatican II’s “fundamental reorientation of the Catholic Church” is a manifestation of the components of liberal Catholicism: especially “religious indifferentism” and the modernist belief in at least “some transformation of the Church’s dogmatic message over the course of the centuries.”[28]

      In following the post-Conciliar approach to the Jews, Pope Benedict, in the words of Rabbi Rosen, is “institutionalizing revolution” – a revolution that is a head-on collision with the infallible decree of the Council of Florence that “Pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics” are “outside the Catholic Church,” and as such, “can never be partakers of eternal life,” unless “before death” they are joined to the one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.”

      So, as you can see, there IS a bit of a problem with the Nostrae crowd.

  6. One point, related to my earlier observations on the state of crisis within the SSPX: If it is true [ and I presume Tradical – honest and meticulous as the day is long – is presenting a position presented by the Society’s current management regarding NA, ( may it ( i.e., NA ) burn and turn to ash, the ashes scattered on the Bosphorus from the bobbing deck of a Chinese junk ! ) ] that said Society has divined some way to “interpret” said scandalous heretical document “traditionally”, that said Society ought to place itself in contention for the 2013 Theological Houdini Award.

  7. Hi gpmtrad,

    You are correct I am honest (or at least try to be since my Mother ALWAYS knew when I was lying and was swift to correct that fault) and meticulous.

    First, I am focusing on Nostra Aetate specifically, not the interpretation presented by Card. Koch.

    My understanding is that the SSPX holds that it is possible to interpret NA (Nostra Aetate – I wish NA stood for ‘Not Applicable’) inline with Tradition due to its ambiguities. All the commentary that I have read indicate that this text is ambiguities and practices the nefarious art of presenting only part of Catholic Doctrine on the topics.

    Even Mr. Vennari indicates this with the phrase “lacks a necessary distinction’.

    Regarding Mr. Venarri’s words:
    “…Yet we know that Jews and Christians do not worship the same God. Jews reject the Trinitarian God. They reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah. It is Saint John, the Apostle of Love, who writes: “He who honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father, who hath sent Him.” (John 5:23)”

    He is referring to words of the Pope, that I believe are contained in Lumen Gentium.

    I would differ with Mr. Venarri in a detail concerning to whom the Jews and Muslims address their worship. The Church’s teaching, I first found in the Catechism of St. Pius X and a more explicit explanation in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) article on Infidels:

    “in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammed; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful. ”

    So it is true to say that we worship the same God, in as much as the Jews and Muslims worship the God of Abraham. However, the distinction that is missing (ie left out as usual by the Modernists) is that while our ‘friends’ the Jews and Muslims worship the One God, they do so in a false religion, deny the Divinity of Christ etc.

    Now am I saying that Nostra Aetate is worth the paper it was written on … nope.

    Would the Church miss a single word if it was labeled ‘Not Applicable’ and consigned to the trash … equally nope.

    Is it explicitly against a dogma of the Church … nope – infidels can achieve a state of grace via Baptism of Desire, very slim but theoretically possible.

    I am just saying that the document is ambiguous, leaving out important distinctions that, as usual, are used by people both inside and outside the Church to say that ‘supersessionism’ is no longer a Doctrine of the Church etc.

    I guess, being meticulous, I just want to call a spade a spade.

    • I disagree. We are not worshipping the same God as the religious Jews. Before Christ, they had no way to know that God was Triune, since Christ they have no excuse. They reject God by rejecting Our Lord. God cannot be separated into individual Persons to for us to pick out the ones we like and the ones we don’t. If we worship the True God, then we worship the Blessed Trinity.
      The Jews reject not only Our Lord, but His revelations as well. And how often must it be said that they are no longer even the Jews of the Old Testament, but they are Talmudic? I can’t even put on this forum what they say about Our Lord and His Holy Mother what is actually written in their Talmud. In their “sacred” writings they are taught to blaspheme Our Lord and Our Lady, and rape 3 year old children (they call it “marriage” if the child is Jewish and their “right” if she is gentile). According to their Talmudic teachings, Christians are to be used, cheated and subjugated whenever possible. The Talmud teaches that Christians are sexual slaves of the Jews. The writings of the Muslims have similar things regarding us. Of the major religions, the Catholic Church is the only one that does not codify murder and rape of other peoples. I have been Catholic all of my long life and never once was I taught by any teacher, priest, or Catholic book that it was permissible to abuse those of other religions. Please stop saying that we worship the same God as the Jews. Go to a picture of Our Lady and kneel down and beg Her forgiveness.

      • the point concerning whether or not the Jews And Muslims adore / worship the same God as we do is addressed directly in the encyclopedia article I referenced.

        So if that is what was accepted Church teaching in 1917 as well as in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X of 1910,I accept it as the Church understands it.

        This does not mean that they render true worship as they are both false religions and therefore offer false worship.

    • NA is dangerous primarily in its ambiguity, as J.V. articulates. Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre signed N.A. so he obviously felt it could be “managed” within a traditional framework as long the ambiguities were explicitly taught/clarified in consonance with what the church perennially taught about the Jews and the Old Covenant, which we affirm is dead with the words of the Consecration of the Sacred Blood of Christ.

      The only documents the archbishop refused to sign were Gaudium at Spes and Dignitate Humanae.

  8. Koch says we must “accept the Council OR the Magisterium.” I choose the Magisterium. Easy-Peasy-Japaneesy.

  9. A significant fraction of Jews today are atheist. David Silverman, the current president of American Atheists, is a Jew:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Silverman_(activist)

    as are many others:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_atheists

  10. “The best measure of performance is results.”

    Certainly the results of Vatican II seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which, to use the words of Pope Paul VI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm and many wound up discouraged and bored.

    Expected was a great step forward; instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result, therefore, seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.

    — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
    L’Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1984

  11. TWO BASIC QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERING:

    Is it not evident that it is completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of Vatican II to unjustly demand that Catholics, who in admitted fidelity to dogmatic councils disagree with Vatican II’s non-dogmatic concepts and pastoral suggestions, violate their informed conscience to obtain their agreement?

    If the Council unequivocally condemn bullying, coercion, force or intimidation, how is it that Council partisans occupying the Church’s highest offices are constantly observed bullying, and trying to coerce, force, or intimidate into submission otherwise faithful Catholics who, as a matter of conscience, disagree with them when it comes to the Council’s pastoral and non-dogmatic suggestions?

    • Welcome aboard, Dr.!

      Quick answer: Liberalism, a form of mental derangement as well as being a mortal sin ( under the usual conditions of knowledge and advertance – the grave matter is the atheistic premise of the heresy itself ), is cognitively inconsistent. It is a continuous degradation of the psychic capacities resulting from rationalizing the supernatural in the name of “liberty” ).

      In the good old days its victims were simply known as dunces and blockheads.

      Today, they are called “Your Excellency” and “Your Eminence” and they get nice big desks and fancy offices in which to confer with their attorneys and local wrecking ball contractors.

  12. chris torey on said:

    Hear, hear, gpmtrad

  13. “Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. Neither salvation nor salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Castholic Church.” Ven. Pope Pius IX”

    A long series of references … However this topic is not as simple as you imply with these quotations.

    For example Pius IX also made reference to invincible ignorance, as did Push XII in Mystici Corporis. The letter to ++Busking by the Holy Office clearly lays out Church doctrine on this matter as a point of principle.

Leave a Reply