jump to navigation

Strange portent: Pope Francis to be tried by reconstituted Sanhedrin July 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, history, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
trackback

I think I’ve made my concerns over Pope Francis quite plain.  I have reservations over the normalization of relations between the Holy See and the Palestinian state, which certainly does contain within its boundaries a number of Christians, but which also happens to be one of the most maniacally islamist states in the world today.  It is a profoundly pathological state, where children are indoctrinated from infancy to hate and kill the Jew.

Nevertheless, I have to wonder if the members of this reconstituted Sanhedrin in Israel comprehend the symbolism of their action, and I also have to wonder what portent it means, if any, for our times.  Here you have the same body that condemned God Himself to death, and death on a cross, getting ready to try, in absentia, Christ’s Vicar on earth and the head of His Mystical Body.  This is spectacularly symbolic, and also more than a bit disconcerting for its eschatological elements.

A re-established and self declared Israeli Sanhedrin, the religious High Court composed of 71 sages, has declared that it is putting Pope Francis on trial unless he retracts his statement that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel or to Jerusalem.

In February 2013, the Vatican officially recognized the “State of Palestine” but more significantly, the Vatican signed a treaty in June with “Palestine” in which the Holy See switched its diplomatic relations from the Palestinian Liberation Organization to the “State of Palestine”. This treaty is the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state and as such, constitutes an official recognition.

The trial and judgment will be on September 20th, 2015. If Pope Francis chooses to ignore the summons, he will be judged in absentia.

The Sanhedrin sent a letter to Pope Francis in reaction to the Vatican’s recent support of the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral moves to declare themselves a nation, reported the Hebrew magazine Matzav Haruach on June 24.

The letter stated: [I’ll skip most of it, and only quote its most ludicrous claim]

These actions, to our great dismay, are consistent with a long series of actions and stances that are as in the days of the Roman Catholic Religion, that swore to persecute Israel because we refused to accept their Messiah as the Messiah of Israel, and to renounce our faith.[Excuse me, who persecuted who?  For the first 300 years of the Christian Faith, it was Jews persecuting Christians, and not the other way around.  Even after the destruction of the temple (obliterating the Jewish religion as it had always been constituted and making plain God’s abolishment of the Old Covenant), this persecution continued. Yes in later years Christians have persecuted Jews but so have Jews at times persecuted Christians, and there are many who feel today that Israel continues to be a hostile place for Christians, as does Israel’s conduct in the West Bank.  Neither side has covered itself in glory, but I certainly pray for the conversion of  all the Jews to the Faith of Jesus Christ]  The recent announcements and actions of the Vatican are a rebuke to the Jewish Nation and to the Bible, which you use to interpret the prophecies, as if God has abandoned his original Nation of Israel. Reality has proven the opposite to be true.

I’ve often said of inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism generally, it is an impossibility, because an “advance” with one religion must irrefutably mean an equal “setback” with another sect.  It’s a fool’s game that drives the Church towards the lowest of common denominators and the most generic, worldly of beliefs.  In order for this dialogue to succeed, true faith and doctrine must be jettisoned in favor of feel-good secularist sentimentality and a totally bland, indifferent world view.  It is the death of true faith.

I quote Tancred from Eponymous Flower now: “It is a pity that the Holy Father will not outrage these people further by praying explicitly and in public that they acknowledge the Lord Jesus to be their Messiah and the Savior of all men.”

Indeed. Even more’s the pity that even Pope Benedict XVI was a slave to this worldly “dialogue” and further modified the Missal of ’62 to strip out the Good Friday prayers concerning the perfidious Jews.  Fortunately my ’45 Saint Andrew Missal still has the old words, and that is what I pray.  Ever since Vatican II and the very, very problematic Nostra Aetate the Church has almost totally abrogated Her solemn duty to bring ALL souls to Christ, yes including those in other religions who may have a powerful lobby and who can make things unpleasant if you do not toe their line.  We’ve seen the tragic spectacle of the highest Churchmen for years declaring that Jews didn’t necessarily need conversion, still had a clear path to salvation, and that their Old Covenant was still in effect!  PBXVI declared all of those, and more.

Which simply cannot be true, and which also contradicts our Blessed Lord’s very words repeated throughout the Gospels.  “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Me.”  “He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”  “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not have life within you.”

Our Lord, and Church prior to ~1900, could not have been more clear. If you do not believe in Jesus Christ you cannot be saved, period, end of sentence.  You might be invincibly ignorant of Jesus Christ but know Him through the natural law and whatever Grace God made available to save you, but, in reality, such people were (and are?) incredibly rare.  It is doubtful there are hardly any alive today who are not aware of the Person of Jesus Christ and His claims. Being aware of those claims, they have a solemn duty to investigate them, which investigation should naturally lead to their conversion and visible communion with the Church Christ founded.  Investigation and rejection of the Truth of Jesus Christ would be very, very bad.

And yet today our Church positively confirms people in their erroneous sects and false religions.  How long, Lord?

Grrrr as a convert do I hate ecumenism!  I have a strong sensus fidei that it is evil and worldly and should be abolished.

Comments

1. Joseph D'Hippolito - July 9, 2015

Regardless of this action, it’s patently obvious that the Vatican has favored Islam more than Judaism since the days of JPII. It should be the other way around, especially since the Judeo-Christian Yahweh bears minimal resemblance to the Muslim Allah.

I strongly suggest that you all dig out a piece by French-Catholic historian Alain Besancon, “What Kind of Religion Is Islam?” published in 2004 by Commentary Magazine.

2. TG - July 9, 2015

Surprised to hear this because Pope Francis has so many Jewish friends. I read somewhere that they called him Rabbi in Argentina. I don’t agree totally with you say about ecumenism. Sure everybody should be Catholic but we can’t force them. Then we’re not any better than the Moslems. I think Catholicism requires a certain intellect and a search for truth. Some people just don’t have it. I didn’t think I always had it but circumstances in life led me to that search for truth. I was blessed because I had the grace of being a baptized Catholic. I pray for all my family and friends who are away from the Catholic Church and for my Protestant friends.

Tantumblogo - July 9, 2015

It’s really more a condemnation of the extremism of the ultra-orthodox/Hasidic Jews than it is a commentary on anything Pope Francis has done. These guys find something to blame in everything.

3. Christopher - July 9, 2015

On one hand, I see the parallel of the Vicar of Christ being tried by the Jews with the Gospel, but on the other hand I am also aware that there’s supposed to be a large conversion of Jews before the end…Right?

I’m conflicted, here, wondering how the Pope apparently opposing Israel and being tried by Jews will result in the conversion, if the end approaches.

Tantumblogo - July 9, 2015

There is a huge rise in persecution of Christians by Jews again forecast in the end times. The antichrist is widely viewed as being tied in with Jews or possibly Jewish (in appearance) himself. Yes at the end they will convert, but not before they do a lot of persecutin’.

Christopher - July 9, 2015

Oh, I see! Ok, then. Thanks!

4. Obsever - July 9, 2015

We are perhaps too close to events such as this to discern their true significance, but has the appearance of an unfolding prophesy, or at the very least the first shots of an opening war.

kimzef2015 - July 9, 2015

Would be nice if the current Sanhedrin could pass him on for crucifixion.

If you attend an FSSP aren’t you duty bound to accept all of Vat 2 including Nostra Aetate (in spite of Mortallium Animos) and the Novus Ordo Mass (in spite of Quo Primum.) I don’t think you get the option of cafeteria Catholicism if you’re FSSP. Although Summorum Pontificum allows you the Mass of the Ages, you’re bound to accept the whole Vat 2 Church —Nostra Aetate, Novus Ordo Masd etc.

Tantumblogo - July 9, 2015

Sorry, that’s a total crock. But I think a little more than revealing.

No I don’t want to see Pope Francis crucified, thanks. I pray for him.

Margaret Costello - July 9, 2015

From what I understand, the FSSP are bound to accept V2 but I do not believe the people attending have to. God bless~

Tantumblogo - July 9, 2015

In my experience. limited though it may be, there is no “requirement” whatsoever. There is no test that they have to take to prove acceptance of VII and there is no signing on the dotted line. Sentiments regarding VII in the Fraternity vary greatly, from “there’s nothing wrong with it/must be followed” to “it’s a prudential council and a huge problem, ignore/fight through/even strongly oppose” I’ve seen all that and more. Most priests at least tacitly recognize serious problems with the Council, but most don’t focus on it much. They are more concerned with improving knowledge and practice of the real Faith, which is preached. I’m sure you can find apologists for VII within the Fraternity, but they aren’t very numerous in my experience.

There is a lot of psychology at work in some of the sentiments expressed. No offense meant at all, but people really strongly attached to the SSPX almost have a NEED to see the Fraternity as compromised, perhaps as a form of self-justification, I really don’t know. I may be blind to some faults in the Fraternity – but you might be surprised – but I wonder if some of this “Fraternity has to accept VII” is a mirror image of “Society must reject VII?” Is that maybe inadvertantly being projected?

I generally try to be very accommodating towards the SSPX because I think we have the TLM and much else besides to thank them for. I’ve lost some friends and collaborators over that. But turnabout is fair play, I’d rather not see false things said about the Fraternity based on the Society rumor mill. We have enough problems trying to restore a bit of tradition and keep souls from careening into the darkness rather than look for problems with those outside our favored tribe. That’s my POV, anyway.

Ann Malley - July 10, 2015

…by leaving the Society after the consecration of bishops the FSSP seems, in my view, to have aligned themselves with Rome in a statement that while not written would imply that there is/was no crisis at the time that would justify the consecrations.

So while the FSSP may not be required to sign on the dotted line now, they don’t really have to because the establishment of their society is based on ‘no-there-is-no-crisis’. At least in my viewpoint. That is they emphasized their desire to remain in visible union with the Holy Father despite those aspects of VII that have actually proven now to severely problematic.

I don’t doubt that there are many within the FSSP that are opposed to these aspects of VII. They are, however, now beholden to bishops who are fully onboard with VII. That causes conflict in the FSSP’s ability to be consistent. Especially now as there is the anticipated glitch coming should events at the upcoming Synod compromise teaching doctrine (The FSSP was promised a Bishop of their own which they have never received. So where to go for ordinations etc when/if there is a decided polarization after October?) This new ‘line’ being drawn with regard to marriage and homosexuality may be the latest litmus in who is obedient or in union with the Pope and bishops. Without bishops a society will die out.

This is also why the SSPX/Rome agreements seem always to have “sign on board to the whole of VII” as a requisite at the last minute. They want written affirmation that the council will not be revisited and/or critiqued for fidelity to the traditional magisterium.

That is why when FSSP trad folks and other believing Catholics convey the willingness to fight for the Faith after October should the need arise, but reject the prudent decisions of the SSPX of doing much the same when the rotten fruit was more of a blossom the call to fidelity seems questionable. Not to question the zeal/fait of the individual, but rather to point out that the call to fight for the Faith is only being engaged because a personal line was crossed, not “the” line.

Sorry if I’m not communicating this very well, but the infighting of I’m-more-faithful than X is nothing but distraction. As for compromised, we are all compromised, having been reared in this toxic soup.

The time as passed, to me anyway, for all Catholics to understand that lines have been crossed and stop castigating and/or extolling positions, for they are all less than perfect to be sure.

LaGallina - July 9, 2015

Oh shoot. I thought I posted this comment hours ago… Oops. I did want to get in on the discussion, so here’s what I wrote this afternoon. (Just happened to “save” my comment,)

“If you attend an FSSP aren’t you duty bound to accept all of Vat 2 including Nostra Aetate (in spite of Mortallium Animos) and the Novus Ordo Mass (in spite of Quo Primum.) I don’t think you get the option of cafeteria Catholicism if you are FSSP.”

Yes. I have attended FSSP masses twice, and both times we were required to line up before entering the church to sign a form saying that we agreed with all of Vatican 2, we accepted the N.O. Mass, and we had thoroughly read, understood, and agreed to Nostra Aetate.

Sorry for my sarcasm, but your comment is really annoying — “the I’m a better trad than you shtick.” Probably the most obnoxious things about “hard core trads” is to point out how other Trads aren’t pure enough.

Philosophically I would consider myself a “hard core” trad. To the extent that I think the sedes make some pretty good points. However, the fact that sedes and the SSPX breakaways spend most of their time criticizing other trads for not being hard core enough (And sedes criticizing the SSPX for not being sede) is truly sad and only adds to the many divisions in the Church that are tearing us apart.

We are living through such a difficult time. Some of us have an FSSP Mass nearby, some SSPX, I’ve got the “dreaded” Summorum Pontificum diocesan Mass. Some go to the independent or sedevacantist chapel. Some have no TLM at all. We are all doing the best we can in a very, very difficult situation. I really don’t see the point of pointing out how other trads are not as pure as we are. Especially on a blog like this where the host allows a wide range of opinions on these issues. We are all just clinging to our faith the best we can during this massive hurricane. We are trying to learn the true Mass and make sure our children learn it too. Most of us don’t have the choice of, ” Hmmm, which Traditional parish should we go to this week.” Most of us feel lucky if we have one TLM within an hour’s drive.

Maybe you should go visit Father Z or Fisheaters forum if you want to criticize trads for not being traditional enough.

Ann Malley - July 10, 2015

“… We are all doing the best we can in a very, very difficult situation.”

Well said. But even so, understanding what guidelines one’s priests/bishops are bound to tow is helpful in the extreme. It helps navigating those little lovelies coming from pulpit/pew when needs must.

Tantumblogo - July 10, 2015

And maybe I’ve been lucky. We’ve had one priest in particular, sadly he’s about to be reassigned, who has done more than criticize aspects of VII, he’s said “this is really difficult/impossible to reconcile with the preconciliar Church,” or “this is problematic because of X, Y, Z.” But the Society itself maintains there is much in VII that is perfectly acceptable, but there are elements within it that seem just about impossible to reconcile with the existing Magisterium without violating the principle of non-contradiction, and that’s what I’ve heard in sermons, catechesis lessons, etc., from this priest. And I know he’s not alone. But there is a good deal of prudence in how these kinds of criticisms are raised, they may not be made as directly or with such fire as a Society priest might make them (I really have no idea), and the priests do have to make them anonymously, because there can and has been negative repercussions.

Don’t know how long you’ve been reading, but within the past several months I’ve done posts that lay out the situation viz a viz the Fraternity and Society. I have stated that being “regular” comes at a pretty steep cost. Being persecuted for criticizing VII is just one element of what might be termed as compromise. Being assessed by the Diocese is another, where money from faithful Catholics in almost every Fraternity parish will wind up going to the diocese and used for ends which range from problematic to blatantly immoral. But on the other hand the Society does persist in an irregular canonical situation, with a variety of implications that spin out from that. So folks have to work out for themselves what they can live with, or what they think satisfies their conscience best. About the only thing I’m dogmatic about is not whether SSPX or Ecclesia Dei is best but not attacking each other gratuitously. I am as opposed to “SSPX is protestant” as I am to “Fraternity is a total sell out.” There is a good deal of calumniating on both sides I have tried assiduously to avoid, and as I said, that’s even cost me some friendships and collaborations, which is very sad.

That being said, I think there is room for discussion of reality and the difficulties each group faces. I think my overall concern is that the modernists have managed to create a situation in the Church where there is no absolutely safe harbor, no place to hide in which there is either not some problem or some compromise involved. That’s another reason I try to keep my analysis of the SSPX situation reasonable and limited, because I do recognize being “regular” comes at a steep cost……and even more, I recognize that without the SSPX there would, humanly speaking, be no TLM anywhere, there would be no Ecclesia Dei or Fraternity or anything else.

Ann Malley - July 10, 2015

It would appear, Tantum, that you and I are pretty much on the same page with the exception that my situation leads me – and God bless them for being there – to the SSPX.

In my experience, the faithful are the ones who do the lion’s share of infighting whereas the relationships between the priests of various traditional organizations are more congenial as they understand the assorted pressures and political machinations involved in ‘the job’.

No easy business to be sure.

Thanks for allowing the discussion!

c matt - July 10, 2015

What does it even mean to “accept VII”? The council was so full of ambiguity even St. Pius X could probably have “accepted it.” He of course would have considered it a horribly imprudent exercise, but you can put whatever veneer (orthodox or heterodox) you like on it.

Ann Malley - July 10, 2015

…um, the rampant ambiguity is precisely why Pope St. Pius X would likely not have accepted it, c matt. It’s the willingness to sign on board to overt obfuscation in the context of Vatican documents that is the mark of the modern era.

5. Ever mindful - July 9, 2015

Great article…well said!

kimzef2015 - July 10, 2015

Thank you to all who responded to my comment concerning being FSSP and accepting Vat2.

I am actually a music director in a Novus Ordo parish who has been navigating the Trad world online. I’ve attended an FSSP, SSPX, and a independent Catholic chapel—yes I am fortunate to have all 3 within an hour and a half’s drive and I have friends at all 3. I can only attend M-Sat as I’m tied up on Sunday with my bread and butter job. After weighing all the info–I decided the independent sede one was the most honest choice. So I am being conditionally baptized there ((something N.O. priests wouldn’t give me though I was very doubtful of my S. Baptist baptism) and while the independent sede priest will allow me to continue my N.O. job, I am only to take the sacraments at TLM. Of course, if I revealed what I’m doing to the N.O. parish priest where I work, my job might be in jeopardy.

So I’m really not traddier and holier than anyone—in fact quite the opposite–I’m a hypocrite.

camper - July 10, 2015

I’ve thought over the SSPX vs. FSSP vs. sede issue a fair amount and I’m smarter and much better read than most trads. My opinion is that Pope Francis is a material heretic (please don’t block me Tantum; I’ll stop arguing that if you insist; I have my reasons) and possibly that other recent Popes, including JPII, were material heretics as well. Thus, the right position is to be in communion with Rome but to call for the deposition of the Pope. Though I’m no historian such a position is apparently sound according to the tradition of the Church. I believe the Fraternity priests in Dallas hinted that Pope Francis certainly didn’t seem Catholic in a sermon they gave there, though I hope that doesn’t get them in trouble. However, I wouldn’t know where to go to verify such a belief except maybe an FSSP or ICKSP priest.

Perhaps Tantum can do a post on whether a Pope can be deposed. I’ve heard it can be done. There is enough good on the side of the sedes and the SSPX that in all fairness, this seems to be just. I do think the sede position is not legit, and I also discourage anyone from going to the SSPX mass as well. The SSPX can’t work on deposing the Pope.

kimzef2015 - July 10, 2015

I have met several SSPXers who hold to the sedevacantist position and I know 2 FSSPers who confided to me that they do so as well. And I have yet to meet an FSSPer who thinks Vat 2 was legit.

Many trads are still cafeteria Catholics in their own way.

So I simply decided that I only want the sacraments from a priest ordained in the old rite at a TLM. That could be at an independent sede chapel, CMRI (sede), SSPX, and possibly an FSSP or diocesan TLM (depending on how the priest was ordained).

That’s the best I can do unless God shoots me lightning bolt command.

Ann Malley - July 10, 2015

…that’s why it’s a good idea not to paint with a broad brush. Those inside groups are there for many reasons and not always those we think them to be.

6. Margaret Costello - July 10, 2015

Tantamblogo- my understanding of the FSSP having to sign off (literally, they have to sign a document I believe) on V2 as being ok comes from the situation concerning a priest we both know and love. It’s the reason he does not join the fraternity. I could be wrong so maybe it’s worth looking into? God bless~

7. LaGallina - July 10, 2015

I have a question related to comments from kimzef2015 that maybe some of you can help me with.

Kimzef2015, you mentioned you would be conditionally baptized by an independent sede priest. Did the Church require conditional re-baptism of Protestants converting to the Catholic Faith before V2?

Second question, regarding Quo Primum. Quo Primum is extremely clear and straight forward. How can there be any argument that Rome is not in schism/ apostasy having not only changed the Mass entirely, but punishing those who insist on celebrating/ assisting at the Old Mass?

Thanks for anyone who has answers.

Tantumblogo - July 10, 2015

I know the answer to the first……..the answer is no. It was never required, to my knowledge.

We can certainly ask the 2nd question but none of us is in a position to definitively answer it. We cannot be the Church’s or Pope’s final judge. We can certainly ascertain and respond according to our lights, but we cannot definitively say: “Rome has fallen” or “Pope is heretic.”

Sede vacantism is a blind alley. If sede vacantists are correct, then Christ’s promise is void and the Church never existed in the first place.

kimzef2015 - July 11, 2015

To LaGallina and Tantum:

from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on July 20, 1859:

In the case of a convert from heresy, inquiry should be made about the validity of his former baptism. If after careful investigation it is discovered that the party was never baptized or that the supposed baptism was invalid, he must now be baptized unconditionally.

However, if the investigation leaves doubt about the validity of baptism, then IT IS TO BE REPEATED CONDITIONALLY, using the ceremony of baptism for adults.

kimzef2015 - July 11, 2015

As to the case for sedevacantism, these CMRI archives contain
a 2 part sermon explaining it.

.
http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/index_files/CMRI_Archives.htm

kimzef2015 - July 11, 2015

Sorry I meant a 4 part segment.

LaGallina - July 11, 2015

Kimzef2015 — Wouldn’t all baptized converts be coming from heresy? “Inquiry should be made about the validity of his former baptism,” is pretty vague. I’m sure had priests had more to go on than that, such as — was the convert baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost was probably a big part of what they ended to know.

And Tantum, I’m not sure why you jumped from Quo Primum to sedevacantism. I’m no Einstein, but I can read Quo Primum and see that it has been completely disobeyed. Does that make me evil or a sedevacantist? I dont think so. But I think someone should have the conversation. I never hear it from anyone, even the most “hardcore” trads. It is a valid question.What about Quo Primum?

I have no interest in sedevacantism because they have no leadership, and because it is not up to me to make these decisions. But if we laymen ask the questions maybe the clergy will step up to reclaim our Faith.

Lastly, why would sedevacantism make Catholicism null and void. If I understand their argument, sedevacantists would say that NOT being sedevacantist would make Catholicism null and void — as the Church is perfect and cannot err. (And it certainly seems to have some errors these past 50 years.) I have heard their arguments, but I am not convinced due mainly to their lack of unity and leadership.

Sorry if I am giving you a headache, Tantum! I just think it is okay to ask questions. I’m glad we can have discussions around here. There is nowhere else to go but the Catholic Church. Someday a huge miracle will clear up all of this mess. I may ask the hard questions, but I believe with all of my heart in the One True Church

kimzef2015 - July 12, 2015

La Gallina—

A valid baptism is determined by form and the intention if the baptizer. Many Protestant denominations use the correct form but do not necessarily have the right intention. Most fundamentalist sects do no consider it at all salvific—just a nice symbolic thing to do in imitation of Christ.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: