Since I’m back in this now, I thought I’d try to clear up this misunderstanding (I explained this earlier in the thread, but I think it got lost). He is indeed a Bishop. He was made one by another Bishop, and that elevation stands and can’t be changed. However, it was done illicitly, that is, without approval of the Vatican. They can deny him the power to SERVE as a Bishop within the Church, but he IS one. This is a “mark on your soul” that cannot be erased (like getting baptized). I do not see this doctrine ever changing. Some doctrines do change, but not any as deep and far-reaching as this (deep and far-reaching because to change it would have theological implications for ALL the sacraments).
Yeah, that’s all I meant by that. That you mentioned it, nothing else.
Well I and others it appear have no clue. He is not being effective at clearing it up, and I am not being effective at hearing what he is trying to say, and I really want to see what is on his mind, because something clearly is, and it seems I sparked it.
If you have an idea what he means, can you paraphrase it for me maybe? I promise to not attribute the opinion to you and I will explain that to anyone else that does too.
do you understand the difference between “mutual respect” and “equal validity”? Because it appears you believe they are one and the same.
I respect everyone’s beliefs and the right to have those beliefs. But I don’t have to pick a team to side with and have “equal validity” with while losing respect for all other beliefs or the people who hold them.
In fact, saying “my belief is right, and unless you believe the same thing equally, you are deserving of less or no respect” is the very definition of intolerance. Yet it appears that is precisely what you are saying here is the only outcome for the way Christians view non-Christians (let alone other Christians from themselves)"
Hmmmm.
See where I am confused? This is the kind of thing that brought me into this thread in the first place.
Time to ramp it up then if there is going to be bad PR on a related front.
Again, something the Pope could have and should have easily foreseen. That he didn’t is either an error of omission or one of commission. But it is an error in implementing the program of reconciliation, make no mistake about that.
Wow, that is might actually be worse then your claim that the ability to take communion for no Catholics in a catholic church is due to time constraints. I have never heard a Catholic dismiss the Eucharist as “crackers and wine”.
I am not Catholic bu my loved one is, and even I am offended by this.
Now I REALLY want a cite for the claim that being in Communion is more important then life itself to a Catholic.
Maybe you would do well to study under them for a few years and then come back to this thread. You are spinning further and further from any sense at all, and as you expose the basis for your rhetoric, what you built earlier is crumbling to the ground.
Maybe time to let it go, take a few days, have some fun, instead of seeing intolerance in everything that is not “equally valid” to what is in your head.
yeah. well.
That’s what I mean by not lookoing to understand if people are discussing things in good faith - no pun intended - and seeing intolerance everywhere.
Let us know when you develop that skill. :rolleyes:
At least he posted a cite. I have asked for yours where you stated facts, and have yet to see one.
Was it in this thread where someone said there are not enough rolleyes in the world to suffice?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: …
You know, based on your earlier expositions on the meaning of excommunication, any potential ignorance was fought. Give yourself some credit.
The issue long ago moved past concerns about that, to how a large organization wished to participate and be perceived in the even larger environment in which it exists.
It has the choice to be insular and deny any outside interactions, to be completely transparent, or find a combination that works.
What it does not have as a choice to to deny that it is in a larger environment.
So can we quit it about the Communion already? Your incessant focusing on that is making you look, perhaps wrongly, as small-headed.
I get what you mean about the mark on the should and Baptism because time/number of baptism differences between RCC and other Christian churches have come up for discussion before.
But are we to really accept that the leaders of SPXX, in denying V2 and who all knows what else they did, were not already in a state of excommunication (by their own actions, not the Vatican’s declaration), and hence that the elevation to Bishop was not only illicit but invalid?
I am not arguing it was, I am asking about that case. It seems, given the nature of SPXX’s disputes, that there would be quite the paper trail to decide if they were in a state of excommunication or not.
This might also be close to the public’s confusion about how this guy is a Bishop, and if the Pope made special dispensation (or intends to) or not.
Because if it is likely that these guys were excommunicated before elevating this guy (and probably others?) to Bishop, then that seems an even worse offense to my eyes, and it would seem that the Vatican has now waved a magic wand as it were, to make it go away.
So what if any evidence or claim is there that these guys had no placed themselves in a state of excommunication, entirely independent of their Holocaust denial, well before this Bishop was elevated?
That might clear up a lot on the public perception that what is truly an external PR disaster is being covered up by claiming obscure and pedantic internal doctrinal matters that can’t possibly be understood by outsiders.
ETA: I’d also suggest that if the internal doctrine is such a fine point that it took at least 20 years and 2 Popes, and more likely 40 years and at least 4 Popes to decide, that asking the public to not accept that the decision is not one to be looked into is remarkably short-sighted in its own regard.
OK, I’m going to try (mswas, forgive me and please correct me if I misrepresent you). I think his basic point is this: That religions with opposing doctrine that can’t be reconciled are inherently “intolerant” of each other. That is, Christianity says that Jesus is the Savior of mankind. Judiasm obviously doesn’t. Those two beliefs are inherently in opposition to each other, and therefore, it doesn’t make sense for a Christian to equate the two religions as equally valid religions…you have to see one as true and one as not true. You might believe that adherents of other religions are fine people, mean well, etc., while at the same time believe that they are misguided in terms of their religious beliefs.
His foray into calling others in this thread intolerant, I’m a little fuzzier on, but basically I think he’s saying that if you can’t accept the above, then you are intolerant of what the Christian religion teaches. That is, if you say that Christians are intolerant because they do not accept Judaism as equally valid, then you are equally intolerant, because you do not accept that Christian doctrine says that other religions are not equally valid.
Hope I explained this correctly, and made it more clear, not less!
The problem is that there was a long history of actively encouraging respect, tolerance and understanding between the two faiths. It became gauche to talk about “perfidious Jews”, and instead it became proper to talk about how Catholics should “pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” There was a trend where interfaith councils determined that “Encouragement of dialogue between the two faiths does involve recognition, understanding and respect for each other’s beliefs, without having to accept them” and where a Pope himself stated that the goal of “good fellowship” was vital.
The change in language is not minor. The change in language does not have inconsequential effects when it comes to how it’s received by those who are hearing it. You can still believe that Christ is the only path to salvation without specifically singling out Jews as requiring conversion. Likewise, you can de-excommunicate (or whatever the term is) a rebellious scumbag while, at the same time and unprompted by controversy, make clear that his views are repugnant and his anti-Semitism is sinful.
Now we’re trending back towards a time when Jews were seen as benighted and the Jewish faith did not have to be learned about so much as destroyed via total conversion to Christianity.
Many of us still remember the Maranos.
An ivory tower academic certainly should.
It is a twisted abrogation of the very concept of brotherhood to claim that disdain is respect, and that asking that someone not be disdainful of you is “intolerance”. Especially as Mswas wants to claim that, and I quote, “Jews do not respect Christianity. They ridicule it as quaint polytheism whenever they think Christians are not listening.” So (possibly fictional) Jews objecting to Catholicism’s theology show a lack of respect. But when it’s pointed out that the Pope himself changed a prayer to imply that the Jews must convert to Christianity as their entire religion was invalid, it’s not only evinces respect for Jews and is conducive to warm relations, but that Jews are intolerant for being offended. (Should Catholics, then, not be offended if the possibly fictional bunch o’ Jews publicly expressed their view that Catholicism was a polytheist religion?)
It’s Alice in Wonderland level weirdness.
One is not obligated to tolerate intolerance.
Nobody has said that Christians can’t believe that salvation only comes through Jesus. The problem comes when Christians start pushing for the destruction of Judaism, by name, through conversion. It takes a degree of willful ignorance or being painfully tone-deaf for a Pope to ignore the difference between “all people should come to Jesus” and “The Jews, ya know the Jews, specifically? Yeah, they should stop being Jews and become Christians now.”
One cannot ask that after being told that your entire religion is invalid, that you then cheerfully accept that claim lest you be ‘intolerant’.
It is a strange sort of argument to claim that Jews who accept Catholicism as a valid spiritual path are really intolerant because they object to the claim that Judaism is not a valid spiritual path.
One cannot have “mutual respect and understanding”, as Paul VI called for, if the only drive is to consider Judaism to be a false path that must be eradicated by 100% conversion. You cannot respect something that you publicly state should, specifically, be eradicated from the face of the Earth. It is… strange… to say that when Jewish groups specifically say that Catholics have a valid faith that should be learned about, and Catholic groups specifically say that Jews have an invalid religion that has to be destroyed by conversion, that it’s the Jews who are intolerant.
Would anybody even argue the point if, tomorrow, the UAHC came out with a statement that said “All Catholics should give up this silly Jesus Christ thing. Yoshue Ben Yoseph was just a poor kid in ancient Israel.” Would Catholics be “intolerant” if they found that deliberate statement to be offensive?
(note, I’m not saying that Jews accept claims of Jesus’ divinity, but specifically calling them out as false would be an entirely different kettle of fish, right?)
And demonizing a group as “intolerant” for not wanting to be condescend to and told that they shouldn’t exist anymore, is pretty much the same thinking going on as when Mswas said “here’s what I have to say about the Holocaust, “Those elitist pricks had it coming, shame about the gimps, fags and hobos though.””
I don’t see much difference between “joking” that Jewish “elitists” had their extermination coming as a just reward, and honestly arguing that Jews are “intolerant” if they ask that their religion be respected and not designated for obliteration through total conversion.
OK that makes some structural sense, and on the face of it, I would say, if that is what he meant, it is rhetorically suspect.
Suspect because the entire edifice depends on a foundation of “opposition”, as opposed to merely “different”.
RCC and hardly the only church, and for that mater, Christianity as a whole, the only religious system to feel it is the only valid one and the world will not be perfect in some sense until all others are vanquished.
Tolerance means finding a way to diplomatically moderate, or damp down in engineering terms, the most extreme and predictable outcomes from such inherent conflicts, ranging from an interpersonal level to a inter Nation State level, and lately even nonState actor level. It affects all of us.
To do otherwise is to destroy the social contract that we have in a sense., and to assert that all means towards a goal are acceptable regardless of the costs to society.
Some are not ready to rend that social contract at all, and there is the not-fully debunked perception that both RCC leaders (Pope Benedict e.g.) and rank and file lay folks such as Mswas are willing to rend that contract at least a bit.
Are RCC members even a little bit concerned that others see their leadership as possibly leading them in a direction towards a “final battle” for the hearts and minds and souls of everyone on earth, because doctrinally “we are in irreconcilable opposition to all others, and it is either them or us, and of course our God says it is going to be us”?
Because, while that may be a little over the top, it is the logical outcome of the opinion you summarized (whether it is accurate or not, I think there is more then a grain of it held by others in the world).
I am guessing RCC and Christians don’t themselves like to be forcibly and habitually evangelized. So what happened to “love others as yourself”? Why the “opposition” claims about doctrine? I don’t see Jews or Hindus or Buddhist or many other groups seeking to convert everyone actively or even at all, yet they can all be said to be in “opposition” to each other irreconcilably. Since they don’t stake their success on converting each other, it is easy to see that such “opposition” is nor irreconcilable.
And that is what I think I and DSeid and FinnAgain were ultimately getting at - it is not really Jewish or RCC, where does the this one group, which happens to be RCC, get such a nihilist outlook? It doesn’t come from the main core teachings, so we are asking to learn if it comes from some other Doctrinal teachings or interpretations.
All of which sort of makes RCC seem like Scientology in the sense that some teachings are esoteric and only available to people at some level, howevr you define level.
Oh, I think it’s more about interpretation of what’s there than not having access to what’s there.
There’s a lot your post and in FinnAgain’s, and since it’s not my position that I’m arguing, I’m not going to go in depth here. What I did want to say is that Roman Catholicism is not an evangilizing religion, and I don’t see it becoming one any time soon. As a rank-and-file Catholic, I can say that these traditionalist groups are way on the fringe, and despite this latest news, I expect them to pretty much stay there. There is, no doubt, tension in the Church between the traditionalists and the progressives, but for the average Catholic this has much more to do with what type of music is performed at Mass than anything else. I don’t at all think that our leadership is heading us in the direction that you fear…I think they are just trying to figure out a way to reconcile various factions of the Church. What they DON’T want is them to become some kind of martyrs to a cause. That’s actually one of the worst things that could happen.
This post will be redacted due to character limits.
Well I have not read it back to front and front to back, but as I understand it they were not trying to eliminate religious INFLUENCE of the process but religious DOMINATION of the process. I think it is a common mistake to conflate the two and I reject the very idea that religious influence of policy has any place in our republic. That is not pluralistic at all, that is a form of totalitarianism in its own right. You are not talking about inclusion you are talking about exclusion.
Yes, we are a representative Republic where many of those represented are religious.
It’s no canard. I am not talking about the FF I am talking about you. You are trying to claim that Secular Humanism should be the default considerating, and that any other form of moral or ethical considerations are some sort of tainting of the process. I disagree with your notion of legal/ethical purity.
Yea you are bailing straw here. My point was simply that a Catholic politician will at times find themselves at a point where the choice is binary, serve the state or serve the faith, where they cannot do both at once. This is the case with politicians who allow abortion. There is a plethora of opinion represented in the New Testament about this. “Things of the World, Things of God”, “Render unto me, Render unto Caesar.”
One of my favorite moments in the campaign this last election cycle was when John McCain was asked if he ever prayed for deliverance from the POW camp, he said he didn’t, because he knew that he was on a mission for Caesar not for God. A politician must recognize that sometimes the needs of the state and the needs of his faith conflict.
No the clear answer is put your pitchfork down that straw doesn’t need to be bailed right now.
If you think I am calling you names you’re missing the point entirely.
Right, some of your best girlfriends are Catholics. That doesn’t change the fact that these Bishops ARE NOT IN THE UPPER LEVEL HIERARCHY OF THE ORGANIZATION. The entire point of this story is that they were made bishops illicitly by a bishop who had the power to make bishops but not the authority to exercise that power. So they are still Bishops but they do not have the authority from the Vatican to act as Bishops. I made that big all caps and in big letters because this simple fact seems to be ignored over and over. The entire controversy was based off the fact that they were made bishops without the permission of the Pope. Thus they as well as the one who made them Bishops were excommunicated. Their excommunication was lifted because they promised not to act as Bishops.
Sure, but it helps if you actually read carefully what you are responding to. I’m sorry if I am coming across as a jerk here, but it’s very hard for me to discuss this with people who’ve had it explained several times when I understood it just fine the first article I read about the subject.
No the underlying doctrine is not changed regularly. That is incorrect. Why should they reinterpret it here? These people ARE really Bishops, they were made bishops illicitly.
You can read more from Sarahfeena about it. She did a much more eloquent explanatio of it than I did. This isn’t about me but about the truth of the matter. By all means don’t take my word for it, go look it up for yourself.
It is more important than life itself. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand Christianity. This life is but a blink of time next to the eternal life that comes next. This is something that is fairly universally agreed upon by Christians regardless of sect.
Well I just don’t see what there is to be upset about. The SSPX didn’t suddenly rise to the top of the hierarchy, they were stripped of all ecclesiastical authority and are allowed to eat crackers and drink wine in a communion ritual. So this continued idea that something happened that Jews should be offended by is baffling. Why should Jews be upset that the Catholic church allows holocaust deniers to participate in the Eucharist? The Eucharist is a ritual regarding personal salvation, it shouldn’t be a political football.
That they were made bishops illicitly.
That’s simply you projecting. What gives you the impression that the Vatican will capitulate? I see nothing that gives me this impression considering then Cardinal Ratzinger was intimately involved with the proceedings that led to the excommunication.
Well if you won’t listen to what the Pope himself has to say on the subject, or if you think that it’s irrelevant that he denounces holocaust denial, and works dilligently to foment good relations with Jews in other matters, then there is probably nothing that will satisfy you. You want to think the worst of the Vatican it seems like to me.
I don’t think he made a mistake at all personally. The Eucharist is not a political football. He actually believes that communion has the power to redeem. If he actually believes that then he made the correct choice.
He doesn’t have to advance the SSPX members any further than he already has.
I don’t see that at all.
The SSPX anti-semitism is irrelevant to the Eucharist. Personally I don’t think that anti-semitism trumps all other concerns.
As I understood it they are not even allowed to perform public priestly duties. Please show me what evidence you have that they are performing the Eucharist for others.
I agree. That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time.
They’re not acting as representatives of the church.
And the Pope puts a great deal of effort into ecumenical relations with Jews.
My point was that the intolerance is mutual. That one cannot be tolerant of a religion they believe to be incorrect superstition. You can say, “I can accept that you believe that.”, in which case you are tolerant of believers, but not tolerant of what they believe. Even if some of your best girlfriends are Catholic.
I didn’t say they are irrelevant to the discussion, only that they should not be a consideration in the Pope’s decision to lift an excommunication.
Fair enough.
You don’t live in a bubble, you are impacted by people’s beliefs 24/7. There is no getting around that. It is injected into your life by virtue of different beliefs existing. It’s not a matter of choice. I am glad however that you make steps to embrace the world as it is and try to understand the plethora of belief in the world.
My Grandmother is a devout Catholic. I talk to Christian theologians on the internet on a daily basis. I was Baptized in a Baptist church at the age of 13. The function of communion is the same regardless of denomination, it’s just the relationship to church hierarchy that is different.
The core point I am making is that it is possible to be tolerant of believers and not of beliefs.
No, if you think the beliefs are incorrect you are not tolerant of them.
Their religion compels them to proselytize, if you cannot accept their proselytization as a valid expression of their faith then no you are not tolerant. It is doctrinal because proselytization is part of the doctrine. The intolerance is mutual.
That’s a fair request. Ultimately no one can make you become a Christian. I’ve found the best way to counteract overzealous missionaries, who are often young and don’t have a full grasp of what they are asking of people, is to out-Christian them. This girl came up to me and asked about how I felt about Jesus. I said he seemed pretty cool. She said that the whole turning water into wine and other magical stuff was pretty cool. I said that washing lepers feet was pretty cool. She shut up and shuffled off without another word. I think I said it as a bit of a rebuke, which I regretted, but I did want her to go away. If I have time I often take the chance to mess with Christians. Usually my efforts are to steer them to take seriously what they are asking people and to get them to be more compassionate to serious doubts. Often the young and overconfident think that you would obviously accept Jesus if only you’d ‘heard the good news.’ The idea that you can have heard it and still might reject it is troubling to them, and they often go into call-center script mode. Getting them off the script is my goal.
Yes, agreed.
In this, I would argue that intolerance is not necessarily a naughty word. Political Correctness has distorted the language and politically charged words to a point where we cannot use them as readily to express the language, but must take into account the notion of political context. I might think you are stupid for believing what you believe, in that I am intolerant, but that doesn’t mean I will proactively seek to harm you for believing it, in that I am tolerant.
The only thing that pisses me off is when people use terms like tolerance, and pull out calls of bigotry as rhetorical tools. I think it cheapens the notion. Like invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion simply because I mention Jews dismissing Christianity as polytheism. I have heard from Shi’ites and Sunnis that the idea that God incarnated in the flesh is straight up blasphemy. That’s pretty intolerant. Muslims in this are generally not hamstrung by the same politically correct necessities and are therefore more honest about their intolerance for competing faiths.
I am male. I thought you were female too.
But I didn’t say that. I said that time constraints were a secondary issue. I have attended regular masses where they did not make a point to request non-Catholics not take communion.
What specifically are you asking for a cite regarding?
Sarahfeena You are pretty close. I am just saying that tolerance is in and of itself not an end, it is a means to an end. I do not believe that one can think someone’s deeply cherished beliefs are a bunch of horseshit and still claim to be tolerant.
I disagree with you that it’s an understanding issue. You can perfectly understand something and still violently disagree with it.
It’s in fact easier to be tolerant when you don’t understand the implications of what you are tolerating.
I have not seen convincing evidence that this time is over from the Catholic side, and fail to see the relevance of a handful of anti-semites receiving the Eucharist to continued amity.
Well as I understand Christian Eschatology the Jews will be the last to finally come into the flock. So as such they are praying for an eschaton where everyone who will be saved IS saved.
Knowing the history and being empathically in tune with everyone all the time are two different things. I see no evidence that the destruction of Judaism is being sought.
Ok, so here you are accusing me of lying. Yes you’re right FinnAgain, I just loathe Jews and will even invent fictional accounts of Jews calling Christianity polytheism. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
More of the silliness that if anyone criticizes Jews for anything ever they must hate Judaism with the fire of a thousand Suns. :rolleyes:
This sort of pithy platitudinous nonsense is precisely what I think has no place in these debates. ‘If you don’t agree with me you’re an intolerant bigot.’ :rolleyes:
You are simply unwilling to recognize the dichotomy here. This is why tolerance is not universally applicable. Christ appeared to the Jews, not to any other people, it’s pretty central to the faith.
As I said the intolerance is mutual. You cannot accept Christian proselytization, you see it inherently as an attack on yourself. That’s not tolerance.
Right but no one is talking about eradication today. They are just calling for the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Messiah by the Jews. If Jesus was actually a Jew, then it seems like a strange thing that Jews would single him out of all Jewish Patriarchs to remove from the Torah. Why is Jesus singled out for exile? Why does it destroy Judaism to accept the true Messiah who came to them specifically? Is it a central tenet of Judaism that Christ is not real?
The difference is that Judaism isn’t a proselytizing faith. Either you accept and tolerate a proselytizing faith or you don’t. You can’t say, “Well I’d accept their religion only if they didn’t proselytize to me.” You tolerate their religion as it is or you don’t. You are putting a caveat on your tolerance.
I’m not demonizing or singling anyone out. I am saying that perfect tolerance is impossible. One cannot be tolerant of a belief they think is nonsense. They can be tolerant of its adherents, but they are not tolerant of the belief. You have said so yourself, you cannot tolerate a religion that would like to convert the Jews.
You missed the part where I said I was attempting to piss off as many people as possible in order to be banned. So is cherry-picking quotes to change their meaning a ‘tolerant’ behavior where you come from?
I must confess (ha ha, Catholic humor :)) that I don’t have the time or the fortitude right now to follow these long posts. However, this paragraph that mswas wrote is the basic crux of the issue as I see it. These men are NOT in the upper level hierarchy of the organization, as mswas says. They are bishops (because even the Church cannot un-make a bishop…and, it is my understanding too that it was actually the act of elevating these men to bishop that led to the excommunication), but they are not in positions of power in the Church, because they are not allowed to serve as bishops. As long as they do not meet the Vatican standards for an apology/recanting of their position regarding the Holocaust, they will not serve as bishops. It’s kind of like being a doctor…the licensing board can’t take away your medical diploma or your knowledge of medicine, but they can keep you from practicing it. Lifting their excommunication has nothing to do with whether or not they are allowed to act as bishops, and it will most likely be considered back in effect if they were to do so.
Your argument has now solidly left the rails and is heading into the realm of Crazypants Theatre.
I have not called you a liar, I pointed out that the claims that were related to you might be fictions. I never called you a bigot, you’re the one who’s been spewing baseless accusations of “intolerance”. Of course, by your own metric you are blatantly intolerant of Judaism, but luckily your metric is fucked and your argument is just an annoying rationalization of why a dominant group should talk about wanting to eradicate a specific non-dominant group, and if the non-dominant group objects, well then they’re just horribly intolerant of other people’s right to advocate their elimination. You have also made up a view in order to ascribe it to me. I said nowhere that I cannot tolerate a faith that believes it’s the one true path. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that Catholicism is as valid a spiritual path as Judaism and/or that I enjoyed my chance to learn about Catholicism. It is telling that you seem to have missed that.
I have pointed out how singling out, for conversation, a group who your religion has tormented, murdered and persecuted for more than a thousand years, especially by forced conversions, is willfully ignorant or tone deaf. And in any case, is offensive. I have pointed out how you’ve gone to a level that would shame Humpty Dumpty whereby objecting to someone being so intolerant of your religion that they want it wiped from the face of the Earth is, itself, an act of intolerance. That one must tolerate intolerance or be intolerant.
It’s no different than the absurd tu quoque that states if you find the message of the Klan to be horrible, you’re just as bigoted as they are.
Your apologia for obnoxious proselytizing and your support for demonizing Jews if they object to that obnoxiousness has gotten so absurd that, evidently without irony, you’ve now claimed that nobody is talking about eradicating the Jews, they just want to make it so that there are no more Jews and they are all, instead, Christians.
I suppose by the logic of such an apologia, the homophobic camps which seek to ‘cure’ gays don’t actually want to eradicate gays, they just want to make them all straight.
And yes, someone who would make a joke about how Jews were “elitists” and deserved the Holocaust doesn’t earn much sympathy, or much wiggle room for claims of cherry picking, if they then argue that Jews are “intolerant” for objecting to claims that Jews, specifically, should be eradicated as a religion.
Sara, no, not testy, but honestly not getting how what you said jives with the reality as it is practiced. The two seem not to comport.
It may indeed be that the average Catholic you know knows and cares little about how the SSPX schism has to do with how the Church interfaces and deals with others. They care about the liturgy. That however has little to do with whether or not those are vital issues for the future of the Church at a larger longer term and global level and whether or not that will have significant impact on how the Church treats others in the future as well.
As has been said tolerance has nothing to do with accepting each others views as truths; it has to do with accepting that the other guy is entitled to be wrong and expressing ones thoughts about those disagreements respectfully.
We now live in a world that is a society of societies. How we agree to disagree is more important than ever. A large group apparently moving away from a direction that encourages tolerance and mutual respect for those whose opinions you disagree with is an item of great concern to the minority others. You may not see this move as doing that and you are entitled to your opinion. Those of us whose grandchildren may be threatened by a resumption of the Church historically consistent attitudes just are a bit less likely to see it so benignly. Maybe we are paranoid, but as the old joke goes, just because youa re paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.
mswas to give you the benefit of the doubt I will merely pass on this general bit of advice:
Any formulation that says “This bad thing is what Group Xs do as soon as they know you are not listening.” is going to be received as hate speech, no matter who the Group X is. Especially if there is a history of vile lies that made up shit about what Group X does in secret that have been used to justify many many murders of Group X members.
Once a person has said that it is impossible to spin it away as well some individual members of Group X do that, I know 'cause some member of Group X told me so. Or I can find some academic or historic figure saying it.
It is the kind of thing that may get a person hurt somewhere in real life. People react strongly to that kind of talk, not just me. No threat intended, seriously, just a word of practical advice for your future.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty much a tangential issue.
Bishops can’t be “unmade” once they are made, and unless given official sanction they’re unofficial and unable to set policy? Fine. No problem. Reinstating them to the Church without explicitly condemning their anti-semitism until bad PR forces your hand? Problem. Doing that after you’ve specifically changed your liturgy to reflect a specific desire for the Jews to be annihilated as a religion? Big problem.
You can see now, for instance, how Mswas is trying to conflate the views of a medieval kabbalist with “Jews['s views] on the trinity”. (Of course, without taking the step of talking about “Christians’ views of Jews” and citing medieval blood libels or what have you.) Evidently we’re not supposed to be offended that some Catholics want to destroy Judaism as a religion via converting all Jews to Christianity, and we’re supposed to be shocked that Judaism has theological differences with the concept of a triune God even as Jews accept Christianity as a valid path to spirituality as long as Christians obey the Noahide laws.
But no one but you is talking about eradication.
You clearly don’t understand my argument, but I think it’s more of a desire not to understand than it is actual misunderstanding.
Glad you’re not calling me a liar, just gullible. :rolleyes:
I didn’t miss the part where you said Catholicism is a valid spiritual path. It’s just empty rhetoric though because you think they shouldn’t try to fulfill their core mission of converting everyone. So you keep stating that you are tolerant of Catholicism and retracting that statement in the same paragraph. How about this, just do like me and use the word intolerance based on the meaning of the word and not as a politically charged epithet.
Repeat after me, “I cannot tolerate a religion that thinks it is necessary to convert me away from my religion.”, sometimes intolerance is a justifiable position. All I want is that you admit that you are intolerant. Drop the double-speak.
It’s not a tu quoque fallacy. You’re abusing tu quoque here. The point is that the religions beliefs are mutually incompatible and that fact can’t be diplomatically excised. As long as the two are separate religions there can be not full reconciliation. Yes, one must tolerate intolerance or be intolerant. What I am saying shouldn’t even be controversial. Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerant, that’s the MEANING of the word intolerant. Stop using it in the double-speak method, and use the word as it actually means. You cannot tolerate the mission to convert the Jews.
Just say it. I cannot tolerate conversion of the Jews.
I am making an apologia for nothing. Nor am I supporting demonization. You are the one demonizing. The Christian church wants to make sure EVERYONE is Christian, not just Jews. So by your criteria Christianity wants to eradicate EVERYONE. Why would you even want to tolerate such an intolerant faith?
Eradication is your word. There is nowhere in the prayer that calls for the eradication of the Jews. eradication =/= assimilation. The prayer calls for the assimilation of the Jews. If you see the loss of a unique character as a price that is too high to pay then that’s your prerogative, but don’t claim you are being tolerant. You don’t tolerate that they want to convert YOU specifically, and it’s a perfectly respectable position.
And I didn’t single out Jews in that joke, I attacked as many groups as I possibly could in a single sentence. The point was that the rage wasn’t directed in any particular direction, but at everyone. You just picked out the category that specifically applied to you and ran with it.
Strictly speaking yeah. I was sloppy on the way out the door, I meant religions whose internal perception of success requires that they convert everyone else to their way of thinking. As I indicated, I don’t think Catholics go about that the same way as many Protestant Churches, but unless this thread is not to be believed, they do feel that way.
Curious that non-Catholics are concerned more about the specific top level politics then the internal folks, but again, maybe that is another thread altogether too.
Yet the leaders are less then persuasive in their words and in their actions so far. You may me right, but sometimes perceptions are more important than “facts”.
The fear from the outside is that they are willing to reconcile with those that would roll back gains made over the last 40 years or so, at the expense of the trust of those who shared the gains, in exchange for sharing some power with those who would seek to actively implement the conversion goals of the Church Doctrine.
That leaves everyone left to ask “Why do that? What is the motive?”
Why is that one of the the worst things that can happen? Because it looks like there is a good chance it will happen.
BTW, aren’t the SPXX guys actively campaigning to centralize power even more according to this thread? To make sure at the Parish level, individuals know that their comments and feedback to the top of the Hierarchy are not welcome? Isn’t that alone enough to set off red flags in any organization?
Like I said, I think they have been biding their time until they got a Pope they could work with, and in a German Pope - who was not exactly selected in a transparent manner I might add so no one knows why he was selected - they got their man. They waited at least 20 and maybe 40 years, and in just a few years with this Pope, there is a rush to rehabilitate them. That is very striking to me.
And that, as they say, is that.