So, I'm purusing Drudge today and stumble upon this story:

Jєωιѕн Groups Worried by Vatican Gesture

This comes immediately on the heals of the discussions in Rome, as I'm sure you are all aware. I've included some fair-use snippets in this post.

Several statements in this article are pretty disturbing to me.

The Vatican has been working for years to bring the breakaway Society of St. Pius X back into its fold, and this week told its members they must accept some core church teachings if they want to be fully reintegrated into the church.

So, the Society is, once again, presented as being schismatic. Great. I suppose what bothers me most about this article is the fact that uninformed people will certainly take it at face value. For those who are considering conversion it leaves a sense of, "Steer clear of the SSPX! They are schismatic. They reject "core" teachings of the Catholic Church!"

You see, when I was in the process of coming into the Church a couple years ago, I was first drawn to the SSPX...until I read about them being "schismatic". Once I became Catholic and discovered the crisis, by Grace, I'm drawn all the more to the Society, but I recall how effective simple accusations like the one quoted above can be.

Other Vatican II teachings to which the society objects concern religious freedom and ecuмenical relations.

This statement here actually makes me want to support the SSPX even more, lol. There is one God. There can be only one divine religion.

"It would be unthinkable for the Vatican to allow a Catholic breakaway sect that includes a h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying bishop, Richard Williamson, to be reintegrated into the church while still being allowed to promote anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism," he said in a statement.

Egh, Bishop Williamson being used as a poster child for anti-semitism. While I was disheartened to read some of the articles about His Excellency's statements, I can't say that his opinions have no merit. They just don't have a bearing on his mission, I think.

When exactly did it become the worlds worst crime to question the events of history? If you don't accept that things are as everyone says they are, then you become a criminal...at least in Germany (and perhaps the modern nation of Israel).
 
Further statements about the "catastrophic effects" on Catholic-Jєωιѕн relations if the SSPX refuses to accept the docuмents are very interesting to me. Why, I wonder, are these folks so focused on having a detrimental effect on the relationship between Rome and the Society? I honestly can't recall the Jєωs weighing in on many of the other ecuмenical gestures of the Vatican. This is none of their business. They should have absolutely no influence here what-so-ever.

 

"We mustn't allow the moral imperative of Catholic-Jєωιѕн amity to fall victim to a policy of appeasement or blithe expediency," he said in a statement.

I think that this is a reversal, actually. Rome is appeasing them for the sake of expediency. Rome is most certainly not appeasing the Society.

And since when are Catholic-Jєωιѕн relations a "moral imperative"? The moral imperative is to proclaim the Gospel and to save souls.

The Rabbi Rosen is "worried" about the Vatican's gesture and is "awaiting further clarification". Being that he is not a Roman Catholic and does not have the Faith, what right does he have to a clarification from Rome? Christians have the right to expect clarity from Rome.

 

"If 'Nostra Aetate' and 'Lumen Gentium' (another Vatican II docuмent) are not considered fundamental doctrines of the Church, and it is possible to question them without challenging the authority of the church, then we (and not just Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations) are in for a very rough ride ahead," he said in an email.

If these things are regarded as important to those who would destroy the Body of Christ, perhaps they should be dumped wholesale into the ocean and forgotten. I appologize if these things are indeed of the Church. I'm not too familiar with them, being new, but just reading this article makes me want to gain a clearer understanding of them to see if they are truly part of the Church's teachings. Judging by the statement of the Rabbi, I doubt they are, but I, by Grace, want to submit to all things truly Catholic and nothing which is not truly Catholic.

Benedict, who has won praise from Jєωs for his decades of outreach, nevertheless provoked outrage in 2009 when he lifted the excommunication of Williamson, who denied gas chambers were used during the h0Ɩ0cαųst.

Heh, so I signed up to get His Excellency's newsletter. I have no particular opinion regarding the h0Ɩ0cαųst other than to say that history is not always what we are taught that it is. I learned that while in the process of converting. The extremely anti-Catholic sect that I was raised in definitely taught a warped history of the Church, so it isn't a strange thing for me to say, "Yeah, maybe nothing in history is as I was taught."

Does anybody else find it strange that a Catholic Pope should be held in high esteem by those who hate the Church?

Quote

Does anybody else find it strange that a Catholic Pope should be held in high esteem by those who hate the Church?

It's almost all one needs to know.

And yet some posters (at least one) here say it's unimportant for Catholics to be informed about it.