By Cindy Wooden
Bishop Bernard Fellay (CNS photo)
Reconciliation talks between the Vatican and the Society of St Pius X have not reached their conclusion but will continue, the Vatican has said, after members of its doctrinal congregation examined the latest communication from the head of the breakaway traditionalist group.
“Some observations were formulated which will be kept in mind in further discussions,” said Fr Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, following a meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Those observations regarded the SSPX’s official response to a “doctrinal preamble”, prepared by the Vatican in September, outlining “some doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary to guarantee fidelity” to the formal teaching of the Church, including the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
The response was submitted in April by Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general. While Bishop Fellay has been generally positive about the possibility of reconciliation with Rome, leaked letters show that the society’s three other bishops have had serious reservations about the process.
“In consideration of the positions taken by the three other bishops of the Society of St Pius, their situation will have to be treated separately and individually,” Fr Lombardi said in a statement.
In addition to the hesitancy of the three bishops to support fully Bishop Fellay’s efforts, Fr Lombardi said, Bishop Richard Williamson’s public denials of the Holocaust and anti-Semitic statements would also require discussions separate from those of reconciliation with the SSPX as a whole.
“It is not that this is a process that necessarily will reach a solution that embraces all the positions” found among all the SSPX members, Fr Lombardi said.
Even if the SSPX as a whole is reconciled with Rome, he said, “the individual bishops each must make a commitment” to full communion with Rome. “It’s not as if there will be one solution that automatically extends to all.”
Many observers of the process had expected the May 16 doctrinal congregation meeting to mark the penultimate step in the reconciliation talks. It appeared that congregation members would review Bishop Fellay’s response and forward their opinions about it to Pope Benedict XVI for his final action.
Fr Lombardi, however, said officials at the doctrinal congregation informed the Pope of the results of the day’s meeting but did not believe the reconciliation process was nearing its end.
“Obviously, the decision is in the Pope’s hands” and he can act when and how he wants, “but despite how it may have seemed – that we were talking about a brief amount of time – it is a process that continues,” Fr Lombardi said.
“It would be premature to guess when the process will end,” he added.
Pope Benedict’s latest efforts to bring about reconciliation with the traditionalist group began when he lifted the excommunications imposed on Bishop Fellay and other SSPX bishops after they were ordained without papal permission. The Pope also established a Vatican committee for doctrinal talks with society representatives in 2009, and drafted the “doctrinal preamble” to explain the “minimal, essential” elements on which the society would have to agree for full reconciliation, Fr Lombardi had said.
Brother Burrito
Catholicism Pure & Simple
Gertrude
kathleen
mmvc
teresa
The Raven
The question of the SSPX is now **officially** in the hands of the Pope.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have handed in their thoughts and analyses to the Holy Father.
Quote : “the Pope can now directly decide the outcome of the discussions with the Lefebvrists or can wait for ‘new developments’ on the doctrinal questions wished by the members of the CDF.“
Monday, May 21, 2012
SSPX NOT CHECKMATED. THEY HAVE A TRUMP CARD AND A SECURE DOCTRINAL DEFENSE
There is a blog of Fra.Angelo (AirMaria) which says the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) have been checkmated, they have no other option. They have to accept Vatican Council II (liberal version) or face the consequences.On this blog Fra.Angelo of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, has a post ‘SSPX on the brink’.
Fra.Angelo has formed his thinking, like so many Catholics, through the secular (anti Catholic) media.The SSPX are not checkmated yet. They have a secure defence, a trump card. The ace is in their hand.They can put down the winning card when they want to.They fought well for Catholic doctrine.Now it is this very doctrine which comes to their aid.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/sspx-not-checkmated-they-have-trump.html
.
“The SSPX are not checkmated yet. They have a secure defence, a trump card. “
Now pay close attention, Lionel. We know you are only a pawn in the hands of SSPX, but there are NO trump cards in chess.
You are probably getting The Noble Game mixed up with “Beat Your Granny Out Of Doors.
An understandable, but inexcusable error.
Forefit one bishop. And miss a move.
Lionel, that’s really a VERY silly blog article, based on no reasonable doctrinal analysis whatsoever.
All the doctrinal arguments except for one dissipate into the fact that licit dissent is perfectly OK within Catholicism, and … er, that’s it.
The ONE exception is religious freedom, because it has been touched upon earlier than Vatican II by an infallible doctrine.
It remains perfectly unclear which of the doctrines of Vatican II are infallible (I’d guess not very many), which are authoritative, and which are purely pastoral.
From the point of view of a hermeneutic of continuity, and of orthodox doctrinal theology generally, millions worldwide have made a mountain out of a molehill.
.
Jabba to Q.4:
Snap!
1. Lionel, that’s really a VERY silly blog article, based on no reasonable doctrinal analysis whatsoever.
Lionel
On ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty the SSPX’s traditional view is in agreement with Vatican Council. They are not in dissent.
They reject the liberal version of Vatican Council II with explcitly known invincible ignorance and a good conscience.Since invincible ignorance etc is not known to us there are no contradictions to AG 7 which is the same as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the hermeneutic of continuity.It has a continuity with the Creed .
To reject it is dissent, heresy and sin.
.
Lionel…counter-attacks with Prawn to King’s Bishop Six.
Jabba… responds by playing the Queen of Spades, which are trumps.
(Game abandoned after joint allegations of doping the Knights’ horses are made by The World Chess Federation and The Jockey Club.)
So far, Frankel The Wonder Horse, is not implicated.
Well Lionel, I far prefer your own views to those in that blog !!
“According to the project of prelature, we would not be free to create new priories without the permission of the local bishops and, additionally, all our recent foundations would have to be confirmed by these same bishops. It would thus mean subjugating us quite unnecessarily to an overall Modernist episcopate.”
- Bishop Tissier de Malleraise
THOSE POOR THREE BISHOPS :SAD TIMES AT THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
A meeting was held at the Vatican. Cardinal William Levada and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria met with Bishop Bernard Fellay. Ecclesia Dei was also represented.
The cardinals had earlier also met a delegation of sisters to whom they have issued a Notification. The Vatican side told them, according to reports, that fundamental teachings of the Church cannot be changed.
It is a fundamental teaching of the Church that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
Yet the two cardinals have approved, along with the pope, two theological papers of the International Theological Commission which indicates that there is a visible baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, which are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), the Nicene Creed (“I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”) and other magisterial texts like Dominus Iesus 20.
The cardinals are under the impression that Catholics believe that there are known cases on earth and heaven who have been saved with a good conscience (LG 16) etc. Hence there is no more exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
They represent the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) who will meet personally the three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
The CDF cardinals were silent when the pope and Cardinals Bertone, Bagnasco and Kaspar told the Chief Rabbinate of Israel that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. This is contrary to the Bible and the Creed.
The cardinals are going to meet the three bishops and also talk about Catholic doctrine.
On May 16 Cardinal Kurt Koch said that Jews do not have to accept the New Covenant for salvation and they do not have to convert. There is no mission to them.
The three bishops will have to accept all this to enter the Catholic Church with canonical status.-Lionel Andrades
L’Osservatore Romano does not carry Cardinal Kurt Koch’s statement on Jews not having to convert in the present time and there is no mission to them- conditions for the SSPX canonical acceptance
The cardinal’s May 16 questions and answers with reporters at the Angelicum University have been omitted in which it was suggested that the New Covenant Jesus made with his blood was not important and Jews were saved under the old covenant.
Cardinal Kurt Koch was contradicting the Bible, the Nicene Creed , Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was saying non Catholics are saved in general with Original Sin.
There has been no clarification or comment from the Vatican media spokesman since the cardinal was reflecting the official public political policy of the Vatican.
The L’Osservatore Romano (May 17) has reported the main talk of Cardinal Kurt Koch, Prefect for Christian Unity and relations with the Jews. It was organised at the Angelicum before a decision was taken on the Society of St. Pius X.
I do not read the daily newspapers but yesterday a religious Sister handed me a few old copies of the L’Osservatore Romano including the May 16 and 17 editions.
Interestingly the pope last Monday did not say to go out into the whole world and preach the Good News, teach and baptise even though this was the theme of the conference he was addressing at the Basilica of St. John Lateran. He seemed to be talking about secondary things relevant to baptism but irrelevant to the theme. It was as if he chose a different theme. The conference was organised by the Rome Vicariate which cancelled the last Gesù al Centro youth annual, street evangelization in Rome.
The media meanwhile still reports that Catholics believe in a visible to us baptism of desire and of known cases on earth of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance.No one from the Vatican issues a correction. If the error is corrected it would result in a public affirmation of the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would be contrary to the Vatican policy on inter religious dialogue and ecumenism.
According to the Vatican’s new policy approved by the pope, Jews are saved in general with Original Sin and Christian communities are equal paths to salvation as the Catholic Church. Their members are saved through Jesus without the Catholic Church. .-Lionel Andrades
CARDINAL KOCH MOUTHS HERESY AT THE ANGELICUM UNIVERSITY: THROWS AWAY VATICAN COUNCIL II, BIBLE AND DOGMA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/cardinal-koch-mouths-heresy-at.html
Vatican Council II states all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation and so the comments were pulled down. The comments were contrary to the political propaganda at the University by the rabbi
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/vatican-council-ii-states-all-jews-and.html
Koch’s SSPX must accept Jews do not have to convert to receive canonical status talk reported by Catholic News Service downplayed on Rorate Caeli
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/kochs-sspx-must-accept-jews-do-not-have.html
KOCH: SSPX WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT JEWS DO NOT NEED TO CONVERT TO RECEIVE CANONICAL STATUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/koch-sspx-will-have-to-accept-that-jews.html
POPE BENEDICT ASKS WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO BE BAPTIZED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/pope-benedict-asks-why-is-it-necessary.html
Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html
.
“It is a fundamental teaching of the Church that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.”
That’s what Toad was categorically taught when young.
Everyone else is off to Hell.
Not true though?
Like Limbo?
two theological papers of the International Theological Commission which indicates that there is a visible baptism of desire and invincible ignorance
“visible” ???
This is a poor interpolation into the doctrine of a word that is not found there — such a desire for God is visible to God, but in no way does the doctrine suggest that such a desire is generally “visible” in those who are outside the Earthly Church, no matter how broadly or narrowly you might define it.
The cardinals are under the impression that Catholics believe that there are known cases on earth and heaven who have been saved with a good conscience
This is blatantly false, and I have no idea why some people keep on spreading this sort of disinformation.
The CDF cardinals were silent when the pope and Cardinals Bertone, Bagnasco and Kaspar told the Chief Rabbinate of Israel that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. This is contrary to the Bible and the Creed.
No — it is in fact a complete distortion of what was said, as far as I can remember off-hand.
What was said is that salvation is *possible* for the Jews — which is no more than what Scripture tells us in the first place — but that does not mean that conversion is being described as unnecessary.
On May 16 Cardinal Kurt Koch said that Jews do not have to accept the New Covenant for salvation and they do not have to convert. There is no mission to them.
This, also, is untrue.
What he actually said was : “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.”
L’Osservatore Romano does not carry Cardinal Kurt Koch’s statement on Jews not having to convert in the present time and there is no mission to them- conditions for the SSPX canonical acceptance
The cardinal’s May 16 questions and answers with reporters at the Angelicum University have been omitted in which it was suggested that the New Covenant Jesus made with his blood was not important and Jews were saved under the old covenant.
The reason for this “omission” is that he never said anything of the sort, and that this story is an invention of some anti-Vatican agitators.
Cardinal Kurt Koch was contradicting the Bible, the Nicene Creed , Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was saying non Catholics are saved in general with Original Sin.
Rubbish.
There has been no clarification or comment from the Vatican media spokesman since the cardinal was reflecting the official public political policy of the Vatican.
In fact, there has been no clarification or comment from the Vatican media spokesman because these allegations that you are making are totally fabricated.
The media meanwhile still reports that Catholics believe in a visible to us baptism of desire and of known cases on earth of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance.
Rubbish. That a few people are taken in by the mendacious fabrications of anti-Vatican agitators is quite starkly different to your suggestion that the media in general believe any such thing.
Your notion of a “visible baptism of desire” is directly contrary to doctrine.
Can you spot the difference between “an unfathomable divine mystery” and something “visible” ? It’s rather blatant, you know …
According to the Vatican’s new policy approved by the pope, Jews are saved in general with Original Sin and Christian communities are equal paths to salvation as the Catholic Church.
Rubbish.
KOCH: SSPX WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT JEWS DO NOT NEED TO CONVERT TO RECEIVE CANONICAL STATUS
LIES
Lionel, you are attempting to lead people astray by posting false and damaging slanders.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)
How is Cardinal Koch’s real utterance – assuming him to have been accurately quoted this time, which may or not be the case: is there any way of finding out for sure ? – any better than the first statement attributed to him ?
2. The second statement seems to take refuge in vagueness. It says less than the Church used to say. Why ? To be so unstraightforward is very suspicious – when Rome wants to be unmistakably clear, it is. Is it trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes ? The paper on Limbo from the OTC was a theological abomination – its reasoning could with perfect propriety have been used as an argument against Hell – so it is no recommendation of an article about the Cardinal’s words that the OTC is mentioned in it.
1. It all very well to say the first statement is mendacious, or is the work of anti-Catholics – do such assertions themselves not need proving ? Who are these supposed “anti-Catholics” ? How are they “mendacious” ? Is such a defence anything more than wishful thinking ? There are so many scandals from Rome – theological ones not least – that it is very difficult to see why the worst news about those there should not be true. If Rome is capable of the Assisi Abominations, not once but three times, what is it not capable of ? A heretic Cardinal is entirely plausible, so even if the accusation against Cardinal Koch is not true in the form in which it has been made, it is all too credible, and not implausible. The real surprise is to hear that he is not guilty as charged.
.
“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.”
Well, we are getting somewhere here, even if it is somewhere not worth buying a ticket for.
The above statement strikes Toad as being as obfuscating and blustering a bit of flannel as he has read in a month of Sundays.
We are back at the dreary old cop-out, get out of jail free, of his youth – “God works in mysterious ways, so just shut up, stop asking silly questions, and suck it all up, or we’ll smack you round the head. We haven’t a clue why God does what He does, or why He does it, but it’s none of our business, anyway. We just live here, on sufferance. If He wanted us to know what he’s up to, He’d tell us”
This might be acceptable for some.
I doubt Lionel is deliberately trying to lead anyone astray. He believes what he says. I don’t.
But who knows? God, I suppose. But He’s being all mysterious, as usual.
How is Cardinal Koch’s real utterance – assuming him to have been accurately quoted this time, which may or not be the case: is there any way of finding out for sure ? – any better than the first statement attributed to him ?
Because it is a rephrasing of constant doctrinal teaching concerning the salvation of the truly faithful orthodox Jews since the First Century and for many centuries earlier, instead of being a Modern hardline interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nullam salus which contradicts the teachings of the Christ Himself on the question ?
.
And.. “That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable…”
So, where does that leave the Lutherans, The Muslims, The quivering Brethren, Hindus, and God knows who all else?
We all know God had a soft spot for the Jews – the only point of the Philistines existing at all appears to be that they are to be frequently slaughtered by the Isrealites, with Jehovah cheerily cheering them on.
But is the salvation of, say, Aztecs and Incas before 1492, equally unquestionable? Or is salvation just a great crap shoot – depending on where, and what religion, you happen to be born into?
And, if that actually is so, well.. .Toad leaves it to you.
On the other hand who, with half a brain, gives a monkey’s fornication when it comes down to reality?
,
CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA S.J INDICATES THAT THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 MADE A MISTAKE: VATICAN COUNCIL II NOW AGREES WITH THE SSPX POSITION ON OTHER RELGIONS AND ECUMENISM
This is a major shift in Catholic theology and the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Letter of the Holy Office may be saying, it could be assumed, that we can meet people saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and so ‘it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality as a member of the Church’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). Also since we ‘know’ these exceptional cases saved not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who ‘know ‘about Jesus and the Catholic Church, who are not ignorant. This seems the conclusion of the Letter issued during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
Cardinal Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican also assumes that since we ‘know’ who these exceptional cases are they are not explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Based on this error he has built up a theology of religions and suggested all babies with Original Sin go to heaven. He postulated that since Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong, so in general we can hope that babies who die with Original Sin are saved.
Even Pope Benedict and cardinals of his Curia have stated publically that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. Cardinal Walter Kaspar has written that Jews are saved in general in their religion and do not have to convert in the present times.
They all assume that those saved by ‘the seeds of the Word’, invincible ignorance, a good conscience, in imperfect communion in the Church, are known to us and so are exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.
EWTN, the late Fr. William Most and Catholic Culture in a prominent report on the internet(Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney) tell us everyone does not have to be a visible, card -carrying member of the Church and that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 criticized Fr. Leonard Feeney who consigned millions of people to Hell.
Cardinal Ladaria could not mention an implicit-to-us-explicit- to- God baptism of desire and invincible ignorance since he believes that we know these exceptions- they are always explicit for him.
The CDF Secretary has been unable to defend the pope when American sedevacantists, nearly every day, criticize the pope for denying the literal interpretation of the dogma. The CDF Secretary cannot tell the Most Holy Family Monastery that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma.
Similarly Wikipedia assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) refer to explicit, known cases but the CDF cannot correct Wikipedia because of the misunderstanding over ‘known cases’ in the Letter.
Fr. Leonard Feeney’s communities in the USA have steadily been holding on to the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma and reject explicit invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. They are mocked as ‘Feeneyites’ with no cardinal or bishop defending them on doctrine in public – including the bishop of Worcester who has approved their canonical status.
The Letter of the Holy office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani says ‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’. Here it mentions the possibility of implicit desire .However the Letter then criticizes Fr. Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center for for suggesting that there are no exceptions to the literal interpretation. Here there is confusion. It seems the Letter is referring to the possibility of explicitly known implicit desire.
Since it is assumed there are known exceptions, Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World (Ignatius. P.107) says there are ‘not two channels of salvation’ but one. He means (1) those saved with implicit desire etc (and known to us) and who are exceptions to the dogma and (2) those saved with the baptism of water along with Catholic Faith. This contradicts the traditional teaching which says there is only one way of salvation and it is the baptism of water with Catholic Faith.
It may be mentioned that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 actually supports Fr.Leonard Feeney and the literal interpretation of the dogma when it mentions ‘ the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.
It is confusion over implicit-explicit baptism of desire etc which makes the Cardinal-Secretary imply that the Letter made a mistake.For example ‘it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality as a member of the Church’ refers to a possibility, something accepted in principle. While in reality, defacto, in actual fact, when I meet a non Catholic on the street ‘it is required that every person with no exception be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation’. It is hoped that over time this confusion will end with the use of the prcise terms, implicit-explicit, dejure-defacto, in principle-in fact.
Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation. It is in accord with the Society of St.Pius X’s position on ecumenism and other religions.Liberals cannot any more cite Vatican Council II, they cannot produce any reference, since the so called exceptions to the dogma, are known only to God and they are not defacto exceptions.Ad Gentes 7 is in full agreement with the literal interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office (‘the dogma’) and Fr.Leonard Feeney- Lionel Andrades
CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA S.J, SECRETARY, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, VATICAN INDICATES THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 OF POPE PIUS XII MADE A MISTAKE!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-sj-secretary.html#links
VATICAN COUNCIL II TEACHES AN ECCLESIOLOGY OF EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. IT IS AFFIRMING EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOCENTRISM
There is no text in Vatican Council II which refers to an ecclesiology of communion. In the name of Vatican Council II there is an Alpha International Stall at the 50th International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin and the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin calls for an evangelization along with other Christians.
All in the name of Vatican Council II, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,Diarmuid Martin on the Second Day of the International Eucharistic Congress has indicated that the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is not needed for salvation for all people including Christian communities;Protestants.He contradicts Ecclesia di Eucarestia of Pope John Paul II.He contradicts Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).
Vatican Council II is saying outside the church there is no salvation.Vatican Council II is affirming an exclusivist ecclesiocentrism. Lumen Gentiuim 16 (invincible ignorance and a good conscience) are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 since we do not know any such explicit case on earth. Similarly the ‘seeds of the Word’(Dei Verbum) are unknown to us for it to be considered an exception to the dogma on salvation and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).
So there is no text in Vatican Council II which could support an ecclesiology of communion with the Christian communities and deny exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.
Vatican Council II indicates that millions of people who are not in the Catholic Church are oriented to Hell.
The Eucharistic Ecclesiology of Communion Fifty Years after Vatican II
6th – 9th June 2012
The year 2012 marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council that so strongly underlined the ecclesiology of communion.
http://www.iec2012.ie/index.jsp?p=108&n=147
He suggests that Anglicans and other Christian communities do not need to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church for salvation.
It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that Christian churches and communities need to convert into the Catholic Church yet in the name of Vatican Council II and with no reference texts they claim that there is an ecclesiology of communion and there no more is an exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Since they are not familiar with an implicit and explicit understanding of Lumen Gentium 16 they assume that there is no more exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church (1)
-Lionel Andrades
1.
When the SSPX bishops realize that there is an implicit and explicit baptism of desire magisterial texts will open up in a new way
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/when-sspx-bishops-realize-that-there-is.html
Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gentes 7
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/nostra-aetate-does-not-contradict-ad.html
CCC 1257 ‘God is not limited to the Sacraments’ does not contradict itself, Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/ccc-1257-god-is-not-limited-to.html
_______________________________________________________
The 50th International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) underway in Dublin, Ireland is based on dissent and heresy by the established Roman Catholic Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/50th-international-eucharistic-congress.html#links
NO ECCLESIOLOGY OF COMMUNION IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/no-ecclesiology-of-communion-in-vatican.html#links
So, where does that leave the Lutherans, The Muslims, The quivering Brethren, Hindus, and God knows who all else?
We all know God had a soft spot for the Jews – the only point of the Philistines existing at all appears to be that they are to be frequently slaughtered by the Isrealites, with Jehovah cheerily cheering them on.
But is the salvation of, say, Aztecs and Incas before 1492, equally unquestionable? Or is salvation just a great crap shoot – depending on where, and what religion, you happen to be born into?
And, if that actually is so, well.. .Toad leaves it to you.
The specific question with the Jews is that they are “the chosen people”, and that they have a specific, extra-Christian, Covenant with God — which is unique.
Don’t ask me to explain it, I’m as mystified as the Cardinal as to God’s precise technicalities here.
Otherwise, you are placing various non-Catholic Christian denominations on an equal footing with Catholicism and with some religions of entirely different nature.
It’s just as erroneous when you say so as when Lionel does.
Even Pope Benedict and cardinals of his Curia have stated publically that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Please stop spreading these outrageous lies.
They all assume that those saved by ‘the seeds of the Word’, invincible ignorance, a good conscience, in imperfect communion in the Church, are known to us
This is a false and misleading statement.
Fr. Leonard Feeney who consigned millions of people to Hell.
Very clearly, no mortal has any power to send anyone to Hell.
baptism of desire and invincible ignorance since he believes that we know these exceptions- they are always explicit for him
Please stop spreading these false and malicious doctrines.
Similarly Wikipedia assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) refer to explicit, known cases but the CDF cannot correct Wikipedia because of the misunderstanding over ‘known cases’ in the Letter.
You are very foolish — “known cases” refers to such as Abraham, Moses, David, Jacob, and so on — because by definition they are within the Church, despite their non-baptism and their non-Christianity.
It is confusion over implicit-explicit baptism of desire etc which makes the Cardinal-Secretary imply that the Letter made a mistake.For example ‘it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality as a member of the Church’ refers to a possibility, something accepted in principle. While in reality, defacto, in actual fact, when I meet a non Catholic on the street ‘it is required that every person with no exception be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation’. It is hoped that over time this confusion will end with the use of the prcise terms, implicit-explicit, dejure-defacto, in principle-in fact.
The only “confusion” is the confusion in your mind that your false analyses correspond to any actual realities.
Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation.
It has been pointed out on NUMEROUS occasions, since this doctrine was first promulgated in Antiquity — that it is a deliberate tautology — because the Catholic Church, whose membership is decided by God, is *pecisely* the Communion of the Saints, living and dead.
However, who is or isn’t saved is God’s sovereign decision, not that of any Earthly church or church leader.
—
You REALLY ARE making a mountain out of a molehill, aren’t you ….
.
“The specific question with the Jews is that they are “the chosen people”, and that they have a specific, extra-Christian, Covenant with God — which is unique.
Don’t ask me to explain it, I’m as mystified as the Cardinal as to God’s precise technicalities here.” ..admits Jabba, (for once.)
Which, I take to mean that neither he nor the Cardinal know what they are talking about, in this instance.
Fair enough. It is difficult, to be sure. And good to be humble.
But the idea of a God of everyone in the world having a special covenant with one specific race seems preposterous to me. Along with a lot of other things.
“You REALLY ARE making a mountain out of a molehill, aren’t you ….”
Well, we know faith can move mountains.
Maybe it can move molehills, too..
“…you (Toad) are placing various non-Catholic Christian denominations on an equal footing with Catholicism and with some religions of entirely different nature. It’s just as erroneous when you say so as when Lionel does.” says Jabba.
Yes I am, and why not? What chance of salvation did an Inca have, until the Spaniards came?
And what’s erroneous abut the question? If everyone in the world doesn’t have an equal chance of salvation, there’s clearly something very wrong – either with God himself, or our idea of Him. Thinks Toad.
.
“The specific question with the Jews is that they are “the chosen people”, and that they have a specific, extra-Christian, Covenant with God — which is unique.
Don’t ask me to explain it, I’m as mystified as the Cardinal as to God’s precise technicalities here.”…admits Jabba. (Apocalypse now!)
So – it seems, in this case at least, neither Jabba nor the cardinal have a clue.
Fair enough.
Worshipping an incomprehensible, puzzling and disturbing deity is probably not as odd as it seems.
Normal, even.
What I find even odder is how a God – who, it is claimed, loves everyone in the world – could decide not to give each and every one of His children an absolutely equal chance of salvation.
It seems that many people (including Lionel, if I read his posts rightly, which is admittedly dubious) think this is a fact.
If so, there is something very wrong – either with God himself, or at least with our idea of Him.
Thinks Toad.
.
“Don’t ask me to explain it, I’m as mystified as the Cardinal as to God’s precise technicalities here.” Well, Jab, how about His imprecise technicalities?
It’s as if someone was to say, “Why doesn’t the sky fall down? Don’t ask me. I don’t know.
It just doesn’t. Maybe it’s glued on. Why are there earthquakes, typhoons, measles, The Dreaded Lurgi, and typhoid? Don’t ask me. I don’t know. God works in, etc., etc.”
Any point in asking God?
Jaba
1. Even Pope Benedict and cardinals of his Curia have stated publically that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Please stop spreading these outrageous lies.
Lionel
You can check this report for the details.
Liturgical Abuse : Vatican Curia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/liturgical-abuse-vatican-curia.html#links
Jaba
1. Similarly Wikipedia assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) refer to explicit, known cases but the CDF cannot correct Wikipedia because of the misunderstanding over ‘known cases’ in the Letter.
You are very foolish — “known cases” refers to such as Abraham, Moses, David, Jacob, and so on — because by definition they are within the Church, despite their non-baptism and their non-Christianity.
Lionel
I am referring to exceptional cases saved with the baptism of desire . They are wrongly assumed to be known to us in the present time.
For them to be explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma they would have to be known to us.
Jaba
1. The specific question with the Jews is that they are “the chosen people”, and that they have a specific, extra-Christian, Covenant with God — which is unique.
Lionel
Jews were ‘the chosen people’. Vatican Council II, Nostra Aetate 4 says the the Church is the’ new people of God’. Catholics are the New Chosen People of God.
They have the New Covenant which Jesus gave us with his Blood, they have the Promised Jewish Messiah foretold by the Jewish Prophets Isaiah and John the Baptist. They have the tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant in the Eucharist. They have the Sacrifice in the Holy Mass. The Catholic Church is the continuation of the Jewish religion.Our Lady and the Apostles were all Jews and they loved the Jews. Yahwah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is God for Catholics.
Jesus founded a Church and all those who entered it with the baptism of water could benefit from Jesus’ Sacrifice and be saved from Hell.Jesus was the Messiah for the Jews and Gentiles.
So when a cardinal out of fear of Talmud Jews says Jews do not have to convert it is not charity to the Jews. It is not honesty.
Lionel
Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation.
It has been pointed out on NUMEROUS occasions, since this doctrine was first promulgated in Antiquity — that it is a deliberate tautology — because the Catholic Church, whose membership is decided by God, is *pecisely* the Communion of the Saints, living and dead.
Lionel
“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church. Here is how the Popes defined it:
o “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
o “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
o “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation
from Wikipedia
The original saying by Saint Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century AD) is found his Letter LXXII, Ad Jubajanum de haereticis baptizandis, and in Latin reads: “Salus extra ecclesiam non est”.[5]
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: “It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.”
Pope Pelagius II (578-590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church” (Denzinger, 469).
Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”
Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: “I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.”
Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved” (Denzinger 792).
Pope Clement VI, Letter Super Quibusdam (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: “In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell.”
Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’”
Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: ‘Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: “Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
“For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”[6]
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”[7]
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom ‘the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,’ (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: ‘And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican’ (Matthew 18:17); ‘He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me’ (Luke 10:16); ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned’ (Mark 16:16); ‘He that doth not believe, is already judged’ (John 3:18); ‘He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth’ (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are ‘perverted and self-condemned’ (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the ‘false prophets… who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction’ (2 Peter 2:1).”[8]
Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] “16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. – Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
“17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc.”
Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.”
idem, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae: “He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.”
Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”
Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.”
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
Jaba
. The cardinal’s May 16 questions and answers with reporters at the Angelicum University have been omitted in which it was suggested that the New Covenant Jesus made with his blood was not important and Jews were saved under the old covenant.
The reason for this “omission” is that he never said anything of the sort, and that this story is an invention of some anti-Vatican agitators.
Here is the CNS report:
CNS) — The Catholic Church’s relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, “are binding on a Catholic,” said the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews. Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke to reporters May 16 after delivering a speech on Catholic-Jewish relations in light of Vatican II’s declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the church’s relations with non-Christian religions.
The afternoon speech followed Cardinal Koch’s participation in a meeting of the doctrinal congregation to examine the latest progress in the Vatican’s reconciliation talks with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.
“There are questions to clarify in discussions with this community. I can’t say more than that,” he told reporters, echoing a Vatican statement saying the reconciliation talks are ongoing.
In addition to the highly publicized position of Bishop Richard Williamson, an SSPX bishop who denies the Holocaust, public statements by the society’s superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, leave in doubt whether the society as a whole accepts the entirety of “Nostra Aetate,” including its condemnations of anti-Semitism and of the idea that the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus.
“All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts,” Cardinal Koch said when asked if the SSPX would be expected to accept all the teachings of Vatican II. “The ‘Nostra Aetate’ declaration of the Second Vatican Council is a clear decree and is important for every Catholic,” he added.
At the same time, Cardinal Koch said, “it is very necessary to make clear the difference between the position of the Society of St. Pius X and the negation of the Shoah (the Holocaust), which is a position that has no place in the Catholic Church. It is very clear.”
Following the revelation of Bishop Williamson’s comments about the Holocaust, SSPX leaders issued a statement saying his position in no way reflected the views of the society. “I’m very happy about this,” Cardinal Koch said. “The Holy Father has spoken clearly about this position of Williamson, that it’s not possible, there is no place for deniers in the Catholic Church.”
In his speech at Rome’s Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Koch said “Nostra Aetate” is “the ‘foundation document’ and the ‘Magna Carta’ of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism.”
The declaration highlighted the Jewish roots of Christianity and took “an unambiguous position against every form of anti-Semitism,” he said.
The church’s theological reflection on its Jewish roots, as well as on the relationship between God’s covenant with the Jewish people and the new covenant instituted by Christ have been developed further and authoritatively by Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, he said.
God’s plan of salvation for humanity began with his covenant with the Jewish people and if Christianity ignores that, he said, “it is in danger of losing its location within salvation history.”
Cardinal Koch said that for Pope Benedict, the key to the theological understanding of the importance of a relationship with Judaism and Jews is that the Bible is one book detailing the entire history of salvation.
While Catholics profess that, in the end, all salvation will be accomplished through Jesus Christ, “it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the son of God,” the cardinal said. “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.”
The cardinal said, “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed toward the Jews,” but that does not exclude Christians bearing witness to their faith “in an unassuming and humble manner.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202023.htm
Note:
While Catholics profess that, in the end, all salvation will be accomplished through Jesus Christ, “it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the son of God,” the cardinal said. “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.”
Lionel:
Jews do not have to convert into the Catholic Church in the present time. Even though they do not believe in Jesus Christ they are saved in general in their religion.Even without professing Christ! This is theologically unquestionable !
Note:
The cardinal said, “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed toward the Jews,” but that does not exclude Christians bearing witness to their faith “in an unassuming and humble manner.”
Lionel:
So there is no mission to the Jews.
This is the result of gun-point dialogue.
Note:
God’s plan of salvation for humanity began with his covenant with the Jewish people and if Christianity ignores that, he said, “it is in danger of losing its location within salvation history.”
Lionel:
The New Covenant is not needed for the salvation of the Jews. Jesus’ Blood was irrelevant.
Well, Jab, how about His imprecise technicalities?
Not the foggiest.
You can check this report for the details.
Words written by you do not constitute proof of the truth of your words.
Wikipedia assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) refer to explicit, known cases
Sorry — have you yourself been contributing to the writing of that Wikipedia article ?
Once again, this business of “known cases” is an anti-Vatican fabrication of your own.
but the CDF cannot correct Wikipedia because of the misunderstanding over ‘known cases’ in the Letter.
In FACT — the CDF cannot corect Wikipedia because 1) Wikipedia is not owned nor controlled by the Catholic Church 2) The Catholic Church defends and supports both freedom of speech, and religious freedom.
So when a cardinal out of fear of Talmud Jews says Jews do not have to convert it
Well, aren’t we LUCKY then that he said nothing of the sort !!!
The baptism of desire constitutes in itself a conversion towards God, no matter how many times you may falsely misrepresent its nature.
o “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
You’re the one contradicting that doctrine, not me.
o “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
This doctrine is not only fallible ; it’s self-evidently flawed.
The Pope has no authority whatsoever to declare anybody as saved or unsaved, because such Authority resides in the individual relationships between individuals and God.
o “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
This doctrine has never been contradicted, except in here, by you.
You are claiming that the most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches something different to the contents of this doctrine.
Your claim is inaccurate.
Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: “It is impossible for the most true God
Mortals cannot dictate what God can or cannot do ; God is omnipotent.
This doctrine, from which I will quote no further, is inherently flawed by this foundational doctrinal falsity.
—
And frankly, I could go on at great length to expose your Errors — except that you seem to be very hard-hearted and deeply set in your attitude of extreme hardline conservatism.
Hardline conservatism is, however, Modernist, not Traditional, in nature.
You are a Modernist, and you don’t even realise it.
.
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; “
Well, Toad is getting baffled. He suspects he’s not the only one.
Is the sentence above here…
1: A true state ment of the Church’s current attitude?
2: Or is it outdated? Since when?
3: Or what?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think either Jabba or Lionel are lying. They disagree.
I have given you the precise texts of the popes statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you reject all of them- in the the ordinary and extra ordinary Magisterium.
Sometime back I mentioned that Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mentioned the words ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible teaching’. I asked which dogma was he referring to and you had no answer.
I have quoted you Wikipèdia quoting Vatican Council II under the listing extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you still find it difficult to accept the dogmatic teaching..
The Church does not say that any particular person is in Hell but the Church does tell us that there are some sins that lead to Hell. There are grave sins of Faith and Morals. Heresy is a sin of Faith.
There is also Original Sin which is there on the soul and the Church teaches, before and after Vatican Council II, that those adults who die with this sin on their soul are oriented to Hell. This is a diffficult teaching for you but all the same it is a teaching of the Church.
You may consider it an antiquated teaching however it is not as old as the Council declarations on the Trinity and Our Lady being the Mother of God.
I have given you the precise texts of the popes statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you reject all of them
This. Is. Not. True.
Your faulty *interpretation* of the doctrine is leading you astray, to such an extent that you are replacing good doctrine with your own private understandings, leaving you blind to what the doctrines signify — and leading you to consider that various heretic or otherwise erroneous sources that happen to agree with your private understandings are “correct”, and that anything that disagrees with those private understandings is “false”.
This is the very essence of Modernism — ultra-traditionalism is as Modernist in its deeper nature as extreme-revisionist liberalism.
I have quoted you Wikipèdia quoting Vatican Council II under the listing extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you still find it difficult to accept the dogmatic teaching..
Wikipedia does NOT provide Catholic teaching, because it is a 3rd party source that is replete with errors.
Of course I accept the dogma — but I reject your false *interpretation* of the dogma, for reasons that I have explained to you, and that you have utterly failed to address, simply throwing a bucket load of undigested quotes at me from various sources, of highly variable quality.
.
“Wikipedia does NOT provide Catholic teaching, because it is a 3rd party source that is replete with errors.”
Then surely, Jabba, it behooves* you to rectify Wiki – instanter, ahora mismo and tout suite?
* Wonderfully silly word.
Which is all beside the point, thinks Toad, which is – Is there a Hell where limited people receive unlimited punishmen? And, if there is, how can this be anything but unreasonable?
LionelI have given you the precise texts of the popes statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you reject all of them
Jaba
This. Is. Not. True.
Your faulty *interpretation* of the doctrine is leading you astray, to such an extent that you are replacing good doctrine with your own private understandings, leaving you blind to what the doctrines signify — and leading you to consider that various heretic or otherwise erroneous sources that happen to agree with your private understandings are “correct”, and that anything that disagrees with those private understandings is “false”.
Lionel
i have quoted you the precise statements of the popes from the wesbite Catholicism.org and Wikipedia.
There is no no interpretation in it.
You have criticized the popes on this blog and you cannot accept the statement of the Magisterium.
You have criticized the popes
I have criticised ONE statement by ONE Pope, because that statement is blatantly flawed, theologically.
Do remember — Popes are not infallible, only some doctrines are infallible.
There is no no interpretation in it.
This statement is quite clearly wrongful — intelligence itself is made of interpretation, and interpretation is of its very nature.
The statement of the Magisterium is that extra ecclesiam nullam salus — and the Magisterium has, since Antiquity, indeed since the very declaration of the doctrine, described it as being a doctrinal tautology — in fact, this is *precisely* WHY it is infallible ; because it is a truism — because the Church is the Assembly (ecclesia) of the saved. However, He who chooses who is to be saved is God, in the Sovereign Mystery of His own Counsel.
YOU are denying that God can save people outside the Church — you have in fact quoted, positively, a statement beginning with the very words It is impossible for the most true God.
Sorry — but given a choice between contradicting God’s Sovereign Power, and contradicting Lionel and Pope Leo XII’s dubious statements, well, that’s really no choice at all, is it.
I have put my Faith in God — not in Popes, not in Lionels.
The doctrine extra ecclesiam nullam salus is functionally identical to the statement “all those who are saved are inside the Universal Church” — and both statements remain true whether they were inside or outside the *Earthly* Church.
If I could be bothered, except that your hard-hearted stubbornness seems deaf to correction, I would point out to you that the belief that salvation is provided by the *Earthly* Church, rather than by God, has been condemned as heresy on more than one occasion in the History of the Church.
An easy parallel for you — at Mass, it is NOT the priest who consecrates the bread and the wine — only God Himself can provide that consecration.
It is not priests or Popes who save souls — but only God Himself.
The pathway to salvation is not the salvation itself, except when that pathway is the Christ, who is not bound to inaction by Pope Leo XII declaring this or that to be “impossible” on His part.
Pope Leo XII is powerless to prevent God from accomplishing that which Pope Leo XII believes to be “impossible”. The theological fallacy in this papal opinion is blantly obvious.
“blantly obvious” was supposed to be “blatantly obvious“, of course.
.
And it’s blantly obvious that Toad’s questions on Hell will go unanswered, in this world.
But it’s equally obvious that Sartre was right, and that perfect Hell would be to spend eternity sitting between Jabba and Lionel.
And it’s blantly obvious that Toad’s questions on Hell will go unanswered, in this world.
Sorry toad, and you’re blantly entitled to ask again…
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; “
—
Well, Toad is getting baffled. He suspects he’s not the only one.
Is the sentence above here…
1: A true state ment of the Church’s current attitude?
2: Or is it outdated? Since when?
3: Or what?
1) – Yes.
2) – No – N/A
3) – The first “trick” (if there is one) is in the difference between “the most Holy Roman Church” and “the Catholic Church”, because where the two phrases are used in one sentence, the meaning of “Universal” is typically relevant for the word “Catholic”, meaning that this is a doctrine concerning the Universal Church — a second “trick” (if there is one) is in the phrase “they are joined with Her” — you will notice that it is remarkably unspecific concerning the detail of how this works. This is because this is God’s work in the Universal Church, not man’s work in the Earthly Church, that man cannot therefore fully understand.
That is why the phrase has passive voice, not active — to be chosen by God before death to join the Communion of the Saints, living and dead ; that is, to join the Celestial Church of the Saved.
(which is why pagans, Jews and heretics and schismatics despite being denied a place in “the most Holy Roman Church” can nevertheless be given the Grace of joining the Universal Church of the saved — because that is God’s decision, not a decision made by Catholic priests)
(or, to put it differently, Catholic priests and Popes do not get to decide who does and who doesn’t go to either Heaven or Hell)
(which is why pagans, Jews and heretics and schismatics despite being denied a place in “the most Holy Roman Church” can nevertheless be given the Grace of joining the Universal Church of the saved — because that is God’s decision, not a decision made by Catholic priests)
This is, again, unspecific precisely BECAUSE it lies generally outside human knowledge — but it concerns various elements that we do have some sort of knowledge about, such as the nature of conversion, personal Revelations, the “baptism of desire” that Lionel has his knickers in a twist about, the Old Covenant with the Jews, “invincible ignorance” of the Gospel, Christ’s general forgiveness for Original Sin, and so on and so forth.
If it seems confused, that’s because it is — the nature of salvation itself is beyond our ken and understanding, all that we have are some scanty clues and revelations about how to help ourselves and others achieve it, and a promise from God that undertaking such measures or receiving such Graces is efficacious.
Earthly conversion to the Roman Catholic Church is of course just such a measure, and it is the most straightforwardly direct one too.
Jaba
I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. [17] For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. [18] But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. -Galatian 5:17
The Bible is saying that there are some sins which lead to Hell, those who commit these sins shall not obtain the kingdom of God. Similarly the Church and the popes are saying that those who die with Origina Sin on thier soul are oriented to Hell. They are not saying that they are already in Hell since they are referring to sinners still on earth. Neither are they naming or condemning any one in particular.
I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. [17] For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. [18] But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. -Galatian 5:17
The Bible is saying that there are some sins which lead to Hell, those who commit these sins shall not obtain the kingdom of God. Similarly the Church and the popes are saying that those who die with Origina Sin on thier soul are oriented to Hell. They are not saying that they are already in Hell since they are referring to sinners still on earth. Neither are they naming or condemning any one in particular.
Yep.
Jaba
Neither are they naming or condemning any one in particular.
Yep.
So we agree that there is sin and it leads to Hell unless absolution is received in the Confessional.
Similarly John 3:5 and Mk 16: 16 says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. At that time the Early Church was the Catholic Church, the Early Christians were Catholics.All who were baptized has to enter the community and live the teachings of Jesus for salvation.
These teachings have been encompassed in dogmas of the Church which state that the baptism of water in the Catholic community, with Catholic Faith is needed for all. This is a response to Jesus’s Sacrifice. It is saying YES to Jesus’ Sacrifice and offer of salavtion, offered to all who respond.
Those who do not respond are oriented to Hell.
Millions of people today have not responded.
Lionel, your crass rhetorical tricks will not work on me.
I affirm the truth of holy Catholic doctrine.
I reject your wrongful interpretation of that doctrine.
You affirm the truth of holy Catholic doctrine ? But on this blog you still cannot affirm the statements of the popes and Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You have clearly said it.
You affirm the truth of holy Catholic doctrine ? But on this blog you still cannot affirm the statements of the popes and Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You have clearly said it.
Again : This. Is. Not. True.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is a truism of Catholicity.
What I reject is YOUR personal and very flawed *interpretation* of the doctrine.
Jaba,
Here is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I have not made any additions or comments. No interpretation.
Do you agree with it ?
o “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
o “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
o “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
The 1215 and the 1441 are non-problematic, except insofar as I continue to disagree with your interpretation thereof.
The 1302 text *IS* problematic, but only because the translations generally circulating of that text are of a very dubious quality.
A better, far more faithful, translation can be found here :
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/Unam-Sanctam-English.htm
The passage in question : Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. ////// Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.
(the translator is BTW a Catholic theologian, and has translated the whole of the Vulgate into English)
(I had argued with someone about this previously, but I have only just become aware of this new translation — which makes clear all of my earlier issues with the generally quoted translation)
Now, THIS I have no problem with, whatsoever.
You see — subjection to the Authority of the Pope is NOT defined as a prerequisite for salvation in the original Latin — but instead, the pathway towards salvation will inevitably lead to finding oneself under the Authority of the Pope, because salvation leads to being or becoming a Catholic, and all Catholics are subject to the Pope for all matters that are within his sovereign Authority.
Therefore, Vatican II actually does NOT contradict Unam Sanctam, it only contradicts that bad English translation of it that you are quoting from.
Therefore, yes, I affirm the doctrines that you refer to, whilst continuing to disagree with your interpretation of those doctrines.
And I have just seen his theological commentary of the passage, which also examines the Fifth Lateran Council’s declaration that the doctrine is infallible, and both the commentary and the declaration of infallibility agree entirely with the interpretation of the doctrine that I have just provided for you :
—-
9. Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.
9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.
This teaching is based on the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his work ‘Against the Errors of the Greeks.’
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Contra Errores Graecorum, pars 2, cap. 38.
“Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis…. Et Maximus in epistola Orientalibus directa dicit: ‘coadunatam et fundatam super petram confessionis Petri dicimus universalem Ecclesiam secundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrum est manere, et ei est obedire, suam servantes fidem et confessionem.’ ” http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/oce.html
Translation: “For it is revealed that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation…. And [Saint] Maximus [the Confessor] in the epistle to those of the East directly says: ‘We state that the universal Church has been united and founded upon the rock of the confession of Peter, [and] according to the definition of salvation, in Her, by the necessity of salvation, our souls are to remain, and to her [our souls] are to be obedient, keeping her faith and confession.’ ”
Some translations have the wording as: “it is absolutely necessary for salvation”. But the Latin plainly says “de necessitate salutis,” meaning “from the necessity of salvation.” The word salutis (salvation) is in the genitive case, meaning ‘of salvation,’ not ‘for salvation.’ And the preposition ‘de’ (from) and the grammatical case of ‘necessitate’ (ablative) cannot be ignored. Neither does the Latin word ‘omnino’ translate accurately as ‘absolutely.’ The word ‘omnino,’ means ‘altogether,’ and is derived from the word ‘omnia,’ meaning ‘all.’ The result is that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not that type of necessity which is simple and absolute.
Baptism, which bestows on us the state of grace, is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation. Repentance from all actual mortal sins prior to death is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation. Dying is a state of grace is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation. But other things that are necessary for salvation are necessary in a secondary manner. For example, a Protestant who rejects the authority of the Pontiff might still be saved, if his sin is reduced in culpability due to ignorance. It is an objective mortal sin to reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff. But this sin might not also be an actual mortal sin, due to reduction in culpability so that it is either an actual venial sin, or not an actual sin at all.
Now the words of the Fifth Lateran Council, prove that the translation “from the necessity of salvation” is correct. For the Council used a different wording to repeat and to clarify the teaching of Unam Sanctam.
Fifth Lateran Council: “Et cum de necessitate salutis existat omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse, prout divinae Scripturae et sanctorum Patrum testimonio edocemur, ac Constitutione fel. mem. Bonifacii Papae VIII. quae incipit ‘Unam Sanctam’ declaratur; pro eorundem fidelium animarum salute, ac Romani Pontificis et hujus sanctae Sedis suprema auctoritate, et Ecclesiae sponsae suae unitate et potestate, Constitutionem ipsam, sacro approbante Councilio, innovamus et approbamus.”
“And since it arises from the necessity of salvation that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, just as we are taught by the testimony of the divine Scriptures and of the holy Fathers, and as is declared by the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which begins ‘Unam Sanctam,’ for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, and by the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy See, and by the unity and power of the Church, his spouse, the same Constitution, being approved by the sacred Council, we renew and approve.”
(Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 19 December 1516)
The phrasing used by the Council cannot be translated as ‘absolutely necessary to salvation.’ For the verb used is ‘existat’ (to arise; it arises), and so the phrasing must be “it arises from the necessity of salvation,” and not “it arises necessary for salvation.” Also, the Council did not use the word ‘omnino,’ nor any word that could be translated as ‘absolutely’. And so it is clear that the necessity to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is not simple and absolute, but secondary, since it arises from another greater necessity, salvation. The role of the Pope as the vicar of Christ and head of the Church, and the submission of the rest of the Church on earth to his authority, given to him by Christ, is necessary for the work of salvation of the Church. Certainly, rejection of the role and authority of the Pope is an objective mortal sin. But if it is not also an actual mortal sin, an individual might retain the state of grace and reach salvation, despite this objective mortal sin.
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to hold that there is One Holy Catholic and truly Apostolic Church. And this we firmly believe and simply confess: outside of Her, there is neither salvation, nor the remission of sins, just as the Bridegroom in the Canticles proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. One is her mother; elect is she who bore her.” [Canticles 6:8]. And this represents the one mystical body, whose head is Christ, and truly God [is the head] of Christ. [1 Corinthians 11:3] In Her, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. [Ephesians 4:5] For certainly, in the time of the Flood, the ark of Noah was one, prefiguring the one Church. And She, having been completed by [the measure of] one cubit, [Genesis 6:16] had one pilot and helmsman, that is, Noah. And outside of Her, everything standing upon the land, as we read, had been destroyed.
9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.-
Unam Sanctam
This is your translation of Unam Sanctam, from Catholic Planet.
You have not provided a translation for the other two definitions.
So you agree with this?
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to hold that there is One Holy Catholic and truly Apostolic Church. And this we firmly believe and simply confess: outside of Her, there is neither salvation, nor the remission of sins…
…that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.
Do you agree that ‘from the necessity of salvation’ every creature, Hindu, Jew,Muslim etc , ‘ is to be subject to the Roman pontifff’ ?
Let me repeat ‘from the necessity of salvation’, for salvation every one in 2012 needs to a Catholic ?
(P.s Thank you for your scholarly work)
You have not provided a translation for the other two definitions.
Unnecessary, the translations you provided are non-problematic.
–
Otherwise, Do you agree that ‘from the necessity of salvation’ every creature, Hindu, Jew,Muslim etc , ‘ is to be subject to the Roman pontifff’ ?
Let me repeat ‘from the necessity of salvation’, for salvation every one in 2012 needs to a Catholic ?
You’re sticking to your wrongful interpretation — the doctrine is saying things the other way round.
It’s saying that given that the work of one’s own salvation leads to Catholicity, then one of the normal results of conversion towards salvation is to become a subject to the Authority of the Pope, concerning those matters where he exercises Authority.
It’s saying, if you are a Catholic, obedience cannot be denied to the Pope, because the Papal Authority itself is a part of that work of salvation.
However, those who are outside of salvation are not required, by the doctrine, to provide their obedience to the Pope, and the imperfect situation of Protestants and others who participate in Christianity but not Catholicism is characterised in its imperfection.
—
To at least TRY and be clear — what happens is that one converts towards salvation ; meaning that one converts towards Catholicity ; which means that one converts towards subjection to the Papal Authority.
NOT the other way round !!
Subjection to Papal Authority is described in the doctrine as a *result* of conversion, NOT as a precondition for it.
To at least TRY and be clear — what happens is that one converts towards salvation ; meaning that one converts towards Catholicity ; which means that one converts towards subjection to the Papal Authority.
Fine ‘one converts towards salvation’, ‘one converts towards Catholicity’, ‘one converts towards subjection to the Papal Authority. So does every non Catholic have to do this in 2012 for salvation ?
Ideally yes — Catholic doctrine does however also state that God may, according to His Sovereign Will, grant salvation to some of those “worthy” who are outside the Earthly Church (including those prior to the foundation of Christiuanity itself). Which is typically described as “an unfathomable mystery” because it concerns the Godhead Itself. — Such “worthies” however are, by virtue of their divinely mandated salvation, actually *inside* the Universal Church, NOT *outside, because extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I’m *fairl sure* that doctrine is infallible too, but not 100% — it’s certainly a very ancient doctrine though, and has been constantly taught throughout the Millennia.
There is some hoo-hah among some Traditionalists, because Vatican II has re-expressed the (at least highly Authoritative) doctrine using different words — but the doctrine is important, not the precise words used to phrase the teaching (except that – in case of an interpretative argument, the Latin trumps the translations).
Great! So we both agree with your translation.
Every non Catholic in 2012 for salvation needs to ‘convert towards Catholicity’, convert ‘towards subjection to the Papal Authority.
There could could be some ‘worthy’ (invincible ignorance etc) who God could be saved and who are not Catholics. Since you and I do not know who they are these ‘worthy’ cases do not contradict the ancient teaching that every one needs to ‘convert towards Catholicity’ for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
p.s. I appreciate your research.
p.s. I appreciate your research
cheers — I could carry on arguing various strictly technical matters beyond this point, but this would be quite uncharitable, therefore uncatholic.
Your latest post contains nothing that is not licitly permissible as a personal opinion, and contradicts no infallible dogmata that I am aware of.
PS Thank you for your somewhat surprising respect for orthodoxy versus traditionalism as such !! Not just surprising, but also refreshing, and bearing of actual hope for a deeper reconciliation within our Church !!!
FWIW
Me : Subjection to Papal Authority is described in the doctrine as a *result* of conversion, NOT as a precondition for it.
This isn’t actually just some abstract theory — it’s a practical description of one of he direct consequences of my own conversion.
I personally attest to the truth of this doctrine.
.
“For example, a Protestant who rejects the authority of the Pontiff might still be saved, if his sin is reduced in culpability due to ignorance.”
…says, or quotes, Jabba. (Not sure which.) But surely, for anyone outside the Church to reject papal authority, would be an ipso facto case of ignorance? Still, the naughty old Prod only might be saved. Fat chance, really.
Be that as it may, Toad suspects the new post, “SSPX: The Dark Side, ” (Coo-er!) will probably keep Jab and Lio happily belabouring one another with rhetorical bladders on sticks ’til next St. John’s Eve… What a treat!
(What would Christ, and his no more than semi-literate – at best – apostles, have made of all this? )
Toad
For example, a Protestant who rejects the authority of the Pontiff might still be saved, if his sin is reduced in culpability due to ignorance.”
Every Protestant on earth according to what we have discussed above needs to convert into the Church to avoid Hell (for salvation).If there is Protestant in 2012 who is saved, who is ‘worthy’ it would be known only to God.
…says, or quotes, Jabba. (Not sure which.) But surely, for anyone outside the Church to reject papal authority, would be an ipso facto case of ignorance?
“quotes”
And — yes.
( but only up to a point, ill-defined as this would be in God’s Eyes tat we ourselves cannot see out of, beyond which it would constitute actual rejection of salvation)
grrr syntax error failure sorry !!!
(but only up to a point, ill-defined as that point may be, because the point in question would be defined by God’s Eyes alone, that we ourselves cannot see out of — whereas any outright and forthright voluntary rejection would still constitute an actual rejection of salvation)
.
You are both very kind to spend time on this weird, metaphysical kind of thing, Jabba and Lione. But – to Toad – it is all very amorphous and undefined (naturally) so I can’t possibly take any of it very seriously.
You both understand why, no doubt.
It all depends on accepting the totally uncorroborated (c.s.!) word of someone else, it seems.
And God knows who that someone was, or is, let alone why what they said was any more believable than anything , or anybody, else…
And so why should I, or any of us for that matter, believe anything?
Montaigne was right, I think. No need to disbelieve, just suspend judgement. He had a word for it.
To put it in a nutshell – when I ask people, “How do you know that?” the answer is never convincing outside of maths or formal logic.
To me, at least.
The answer is almost always along the lines of, “Because it’s true, because the Bible says so, because the Church, or God, or The Pope in the Vatican, says so.”
Well… OK.
But you see where my next question is coming from.
Yes, indeed..
Toad, you make some good points — and references to Montaigne are *always* a good thing.
(He was, of course, a devout Catholic)
But the logic is not based on mere logic, it’s based on Revelation, and the logical consequences therefrom.
Salvation requires baptism — which in turn, provides you with membership in the Church, ἐκκλησία, in the Assembly of the saved — whose leadership was established by Christ in order to give direction to the faithful — therefore, as a consequence of taking measures towards salvation in life (conversion towards Catholicity, either as an infant-baptised or as a convert), recognition of that leadership occurs as part and parcel of this conversion — therefore recognition of the Authority of that leadership — therefore acceptance of the Papal Authority.
All fairly straightforward — and the only *reason* why that Pope felt it necessary to express this as an independent doctrine is that some Catholic Princes in the Middle Ages had taken it into their heads that the Pope could be made subjected to them by means of military-political power and conquest.
Nope.
Toad,
‘They say’ if you place your fingers in fire it burns.Of course you don’t have to take them seriously.’ They say’ if you drink poison you can die.Well? It’s only they who say…They say one day everyone of us has to die.It’s only hearsay?
Oh Montaigne!
.
If you don’t mind me saying so, Lionel, your “reasoning” above is imbecile. (And, of course, you won’t mind a bit!)
I, for one, have never so far drunk sufficient poison to kill myself, because I have read, and seen, its effects for myself to corroborate the assertion.
And I have put my fingers near enough to a fire to realise the truth of what I have been advised regarding – tested it, in other words, and acted accordingly.
And I am resigned to dying, because no creature has been able to avoid it so far, and I see no valid reason why this situation might change. (which, I suspect is the reason Heaven needed to be invented. Unamuno agrees.)
To suggest these things are “hearsay” is childish. It is not only “they” who say – it’s Toad who says in those particular physical cases.
Now, when “they” say, for example, “Jesus is God,” or “Mary ascended bodily into Heaven,” or “Eating bacon sandwiches on Fridays is a sin” …how can I confirm the truth of that, without simply taking someone’s word for it?
How can we confirm the metaphysical, in short? How can we test it?
Oh, Montaigne, indeed. How he would laugh!
.
And I am resigned to dying, because no creature has been able to avoid it so far, and I see no valid reason why this situation might change. (which, I suspect is the reason Heaven needed to be invented. Unamuno agrees.)?
How do you know?
.
Now you are beginning to get it Lionel! Well done! I don’t know!. And neither do you! None of us do!
If you read what I said carefully this time, you will see that I merely “suppose” that I won’t live forever, based on the existing evidence. And there is a chance – remote to be sure – that new evidence might appear.
And that I agree with Unamuno and that we might both be wrong about Heaven, but how can I be convinced?
Now, give me evidence for believing in say, transubstantion, and, if it is satisfactory, I will believe that, too.
Until I hear a more valid reason as to why I ought not to believe in it.
In the meantime, I will withold judgement.
And when someone says to you, “The just will be rewarded with eternal life,” or “The finger of saint Teresa has wrought miracles,” or whatever, what will you say?
That’s right – you will say,“How do you know?” !!!
So you would not know even who is your Mom and Dad ?
Then you don’t even know if I exist!
Then you cannot believe that there is a sun and there are stars,since what you know comes through books and the media.
God alone knows who is in His Church. To suggest all non Catholics are doomed to hell would be to say more than Christ said – surely?
.
More childish folly and illogic from Lionel, bless him!
Someone once sensibly remarked, “It’s a wise man who knows his own father.” Forget who, now.
And there are millions who don’t know who their father is.
Or their mother, come to that. I am inclined to believe I am the child of the man who claimed to be my father, if for no other reason than we looked alike.
And I believe that my mother, as she claimed, was really was my mother. But, yes, I don’t know for certain. And cannot. And she may have been mistaken, I could have been switched with another baby in hospital, by mistake. Happens.
And how could any of us “know” that a “man” called ” Lionel” actually exists? His real name may be Lioness, and he might be a lady.
There may well be no Lionel. There’s a sobering thought. The Phantom of the Internet.
Of course there can be no doubt of the existence of “Toadspittle.”
And, yes, it’s remotely possible that I am imagining the existence of the sun and stars.
Unlikely, though. The evidence is convincing enough for me, at any rate, so I will continue to believe until a more satisfactory hypothesis is presented.
Of course, there might be a Descartes-type demon deceiving me into thinking there is a sun and stars.
Lionel of course ( or Lioness) is asking me why I believe in the the existence of certain things without “proof,” like the sun, and income tax, and not others, like the infallibility of the pope, or the reality of Purgatory.
Some things are less unbelievable than others, is all, really.
It’s all relative.
Jessica
Here are Christ’s words.
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[5] Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. (Dhouy Rheims Bible with commentary)
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned-Mark 16:16
·
I thought I’d answered this tripe from Lionel</b< already. Anyway, let's see if this gets moderated.
1: So you would not know even who is your Mom and Dad ?
It’s blindingly obvious that millions of people don’t know who their mothers, or dads or either were, or are. You could hardly have chosen a worse example. Shakespeare says, “Its a wise father who knows his own child.”
2: Then you don’t even know if I exist!
Indeed we don’t Lionel! For all we know you may be a lady called Lioness.
3: Then you cannot believe that there is a sun and there are stars, since what you know comes through books and the media.
Well, Lioness, a good deal of what I believe does come from books, to be sure. But, in this case, I believe in the sun and the stars becasue I can see them for myself, thus verifying their presence to my satisfaction. I might yet be mistaken, to be sure, but until someone points out how this could happen, I will proceed as present.
How do you handle these issues? How does observation and analyis work in relation to, say, transubstantiaton?
WordPressed at the end of a frustrating session. Serves Toad right. Off to bed.
But, in this case, I believe in the sun and the stars becasue I can see them for myself, thus verifying their presence to my satisfaction.
The sun that you saw this morning was put there by a friend in Rome, however you do not have to believe me, you can put postpone a decision.
Lioness
.
“The sun that you saw this morning was put there by a friend in Rome..”
Are you suggesting that Pope Benedict is currently responsible for the workings of the solar system, Lioness? Or do you mean Berlusconi?
Who told you that, anyway? Whoever it was, Toad thinks they’re pulling your leg…
Figured out who your Mom and Dad are, yet?
…And even who you are?
Toadspittle
How doyou know Montaigne is Montaigne and he wrote all that?
__________________________________________________
Why do you ask about my Mom and Dad etc? Is what someone SAYS important?
___________________________________________________
Secondly to whom are you addressing the question?
You have not identified who I am.
Toad,
The Holy Father and Berlusconi are known to you so you have accepted what someone has SAID but you will not accept someone saying the Bible SAYS…
You accept that the sun you saw was the sun as taught to you by someone but you will not accept if someone says that the Church SAYS that Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.
.
Yes, Lioness . That’s exactly how I see it.
I may be wrong, of course.
But I have to say that the sun, with which you seem to have some kind of an obsession, (It’s only a big old ball of gas!) was not really taught to me, in any literal sense..
I suppose I looked up at some point as as a small child, and asked what it was, and someone told me.
I don’t remember. But I can guess.
Maybe you do remember asking what the sun was, and being told that it was organised from Rome..
Despite that staggering intellectual breakthrough on my part, I still am dubious about accepting the metaphysical notion that the eucharist is really the body and blood of Jesus.
I see no reason to believe such a preposterous premise. Although until I was about fourteen I suppose I vaguely did, but I doubt that I ever will again. But you never know.
It is bread and wine – no more, no less – and that is that.
Unless you can convincingly demonstrate to me how I am wrong.
But I am perfectly all right with the sun. Thanks for your concern.
You would be well advised to quit this line of argument. You are looking progressively sillier and sillier, to Catholics on here, as well as to me.
…But it’s up to you. I don’t mind a bit.
And am willing, even happy, to continue..
Toad :
1) It’s only a big old ball of gas!
No, it isn’t. Not only is this opinion scientifically inaccurate ; but it’s also one that has been provided to you by a third party, that is to say taught to you — and if your notions about the Sun, including just for starters its name!, had never been taught to you in whichever way that they were, you’d be writing about that big glowy thing up in the Sky, warm in summer, cool in winter, that’s there during the day and not during the night.
Therefore your opinion about the Sun is formed because you believed whomever told you it was “only a big old ball of gas” — but at the same time, you gratuitously decide not to believe those who have told you about transubstantiation and the Real Presence.
The only cause for this discrepancy is your own cognitive/interpretative bias.
You may have read Montaigne — but I don’t think you’ve fully understood his teachings.
2) I still am dubious about accepting the metaphysical notion that the eucharist is really the body and blood of Jesus
The Host is BOTH really the body and blood of the Christ ; AND really bread and wine.
This is not something that is perceived through the senses, but only by the soul.
The non-biased way of looking at this, if one has not had any religious and/or spiritual confirmation of the facts, would be to say, in a Montaigne-like manner, that there are many perfectly respectable and demonstrably rational people who seem to believe this ; que sais-je?, but why not give them the benefit of the doubt, rather than choosing to describe their opinions as being “preposterous” or somesuch…
2) You would be well advised to quit this line of argument. You are looking progressively sillier and sillier, to Catholics on here, as well as to me.
This is a false statement.
Not only do you have zero right to speak in the name of the Catholic members in here, I mean not even any of we Catholics ourselves would have any right to do that !!! — but I for one do not share your opinion that Lionel’s line of argument is “silly”, though I would state my regret that it is being framed in non 100% perfect English.
Lines of argument based an analogies and metaphors are totally and completely valid, no matter what blinkered absurdities may have been taught to you by whichever positivist-materialist dunderheads during your formative years.
Oh — and You may have read Montaigne — but I don’t think you’ve fully understood his teachings — and FWIW, I certainly haven’t : Book 3 of Les Essais in particular is very difficult indeed.
Toad,
Jaba understands. I agree with him.
I am following this reasoning(dialectics) hoping you will see how unreal your position is when you say that you cannot accept certain teachings because someone SAYS its from the Bible etc.
Jaba has expressed what I wanted to say in reply to your last post.
And don’t believe what I say about the sun, it’s only I, who am SAYING it!(Can’t find a smiley)
“…no matter what blinkered absurdities may have been taught to you by whichever positivist-materialist dunderheads during your formative years.”
Jabba, that’s no way to talk about Father Cox, or Father Ryan who taught me at Gunnersburt Catholic Grammar School 60 years ago. They might still be alive.
Bugger the bold. And “Gunnersbury”
Nice to see Toad and Jabba kissing and making up after their recent bodice-ripping slugfest. A tad oppressive, one opines. Like the Thrilla in Manila or The Rumble in the Jungle……..
Interesting — did Father Cox and Father Ryan teach you to cleave always to materialism, and deny the contents of the Catholic Faith ?
Not very skillful at catechism then, were they ?
(Otherwise, I can hardly comment on the teaching practices of men that I have never met, particularly given my complete ignorance of your own attitude towards them at the time, and vice-versa — which does not of course stop me being occasionally fairly mystified by the end results of toad’s educational history, that he so often feels like displaying in these pages)
Or is toad claiming that everything that he knows is derived from what these two Catholic Fathers taught him 60 years ago, and that he has ignored all subsequent sources of educational progress ?
I would find *that* proposal to be quite “preposterous“, if you don’t mind my saying so …
.
Otherwise, I can hardly comment on the teaching practices of men that I have never met…
Well you already have Jabba, at 6.48.
As to their comparative “skill” in teaching catechism, I can’t say. I doubt “skill” is required. But I don’t know.And don’t care.
And I shouldn’t have gone down this particular road. It’s turned out far too dull, pedantic and wearying for an old Toad.
And it’s my fault.
So I surrender.
I cannot see that describing whomever unknowns (to me) have taught you some of your more puzzling notions at 6:48 as “positivist-materialist dunderheads” is to comment on the “teaching practices” of Fathers Cox and Ryan, that I had never even heard of at the time. Not that I know anything substantial about them even at this late hour of 19:36.
I continue not to have even the faintest notion of whence your rejection of analogies and metaphors might spring from, particularly given that you actually use them rather copiously yourself, when it suits you.
Lionel, missed your earlier comment. Does the Church not teach that those invincibly ignorant will not go to hell?
Jessica
Yes the Church teaches that there can be those invincibly ignorant who can be saved. The Church does not state in any document that we know these cases or that they are exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
We accept these cases as possibilities, in actual life we cannot know any one saved invincibly ignorant.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all (on earth) need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
I’m the last person to rely on logic, but if the invincibly ignorant even have a chance of being saved, does that not negate the idea you have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved? VII and ‘Dominus Iesus’ don’t quite match on this, or at least not on your view of the former – though most likely you are right and I don’t understand the latter.
Would you know anyone who is invincibly ignorant and saved ?
So being saved in invincible ignorant is not an issue.
It is irrelevant to the traditional teaching that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation. (AG 7, Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
Being saved in invincible ignorance is something we accept in theory, in faith.
No such case exists for us in reality.
Lionel’s statement is an expression of Catholic orthodoxy.
Lionel, it isn’t whether I know, it is whether someone who has never heard of Christ will go to Hell. Through many centuries there have been millions of such folk, and if their invincible ignorance did not so sign them to Hell, then how can’t be true that only baptised members of the Catholic Church can be saved? Are you telling me that, for example, an aborted baby will not be saved?
Jessica — Lionel’s English is less than perfect, and you should make allowances for that fact.
The salvation in God’s Sovereign Grace of those outside the Church and invincibly unaware of her teachings is described as an “unfathomable mystery”.
There is of course NOTHING to prevent God from saving whomsoever He should be pleased to give salvation to — which in NO way contradicts the fact that the Catholic Church is the heart of God’s Action of salvation within this world.
But we cannot say this person or that person has or has not been saved, not unless their existence as Saints in Heaven becomes manifest to us in our lives.
We CAN say that the Catholic Church is the material essence of the pathway to salvation, and that the rejection of Catholicity is therefore the rejection of that pathway, and therefore puts that very salvation into a situation of danger.
Of course, the closer one is to that Catholicity, the less one has strayed from that pathway, the less danger one’s salvation will be in — but to carry on from there, and to say that God has no Mercy nor Compassion for those who are materially, intellectually, politically, or any other -ly, incapable of even hearing the Catholic teachings in the first place would to be clearly in the wrong.
Wow Jabba! That is it in a nutshell. Beautifully put!
Jabba: Thank you.
Secondly I am not exactly Shakespeare but then neither are you.
Also I write under my own name and I usually write in a hurry. I dont think your output is even a small percent of mine on the internet.
Jessica :
Perhaps this will help if you keep it before you.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
____________________________________________________________
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II
Tanks Lionel, but I prefer Jabba’s way of putting it. Anything which does not allow for the souls of the innocents slaughtered by the abortionists to be saved would be far from my understanding of Christ’s message. Jabba’s formulation encompasses that, the Papal words you quote seem not to.
Also I write under my own name and I usually write in a hurry. I dont think your output is even a small percent of mine on the internet.
???
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
I have already demolished this as a bad translation further up thread — please refrain from continuing to spread this mistranslation, as it propagates a false understanding of an infallible doctrine, which no Catholic is permitted to do.
My own explanations mirror the substance of the Fifth Lateran Council’s explanation of the doctrine, in their declaration of its infallibility.
Rather : “Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Salvation leads to Catholicity ; which in turn leads to obedience to the Roman Pontiff ; as he is the leader of the Earthly Church, which ones movement towards salvation in this world necessarily leads one towards.
What you are saying, I find myself needing to repeat (for what seems like the umpteenth time), is the diametric opposite of what the doctrine teaches.
SSPX would be protesting Augustine Di Noia’s statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus – if they understood it!
When speaking about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus the Vice President of Ecclesia Dei said that he knew saintly Protestants, implying that they will be saved, he knows they will be saved, even though they are not in the Catholic Church.
According to Protestant theology just believing in Jesus is enough for salvation.According to Catholics belief in Jesus is necessary but so also are the moral teachings of the Gospel, they need to be lived, since a mortal sin un-Confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation can lead to Hell- even if one believes in Jesus or is a Catholic. For Catholics it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church and to live the Gospel within the Catholic Church.
Only Jesus can judge if Di Noia’s ‘saintly Lutherans and Anglicans’ are exceptions. The Catholic Church however teaches in its documents, and not through the Vatican Curia, that Protestants are on the way to Hell because they do not have access to the Sacraments in the Catholic Church. They do not have Catholic Faith (AG 7). Di Noia cannot claim that any Protestant he knows is saved or will be saved. He cannot say that for himself.
He said ‘the Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted.’ It should not be retracted since it is not in conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither does it contradict AG 7.
LG 8 mentions ‘elements of sanctification in other religions’ but LG 8 does not say that these cases are known to us, or are the ordinary means of salvation or that they contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma or that they contradict AG 7 which says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
The Archbishop is assuming that a non Catholic can be saved with ‘elements of sanctification’ and that he personally knows these cases.Here is the error.
His error is at the basis of the Society of St. Pius X’s rejection of Vatican Council II. Since for them Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 16) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are ‘known’ exceptions. So they reject Vatican Council II, which for them, has changed the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.
Augustine Di Noia, Luiz Ladaria, Kurt Koch, Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson….all assume there are known exceptions.
For the Vatican Curia there are known exceptions and so they accept one version of Vatican Council II. For the SSPX there are known exceptions and so they reject Vatican Council II.
So Augustine di Noia says the SSPX are in schism. He is not in schism because he assumes there are defacto, explicit exceptions to the dogma. He does not realize that his concept of Vatican Council II is a hermeneutic of rupture. If he accepted that there are no known exceptions, he would interpret Vatican Council II as a hermeneutic of continuity. This would mean Vatican Council II would be saying Judaism and Protestantism are not paths to salvation. LG 16 and LG 8 would not be exceptions to the dogma.
This would not be acceptable to the Jewish Left who want us to believe that the SSPX are in schism and do not accept their approved version of Vatican Council II.
If he says there are no known exceptions, his concept of Vatican Council II will change. He would have to choose the Anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II and then the Jewish Left will protest.
Di Noia can mention of course those saved with God’s grace. However no document of Vatican Council II says that they are exceptions to the dogma. He has to imply it personally and please his friends.
In the interview with the National Catholic Register he refers to Ralph Martin of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Martin and the Catholic Charismatics proclaim Jesus without the Catholic Church. They can evangelize with the Protestants and do not believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus neither do they accept Vatican Council II (AG 7).
The SSPX bishops and priests do not know what is happening. Since they too believe that there are Protestants who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire etc and these cases can be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
If they knew what was happening they could choose the anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II.It would be in harmony with their values on Judaism and other religions.
-Lionel Andrades
implying that they will be saved, he knows they will be saved
In fact, you are simply inferring that, on the basis of nothing more solid than an interpretative bias.
Di Noia cannot claim that any Protestant he knows is saved or will be saved. He cannot say that for himself.
Well, isn’t it jolly good, then — that he does no such thing.
does not say that these cases are known to us
Nor, in fact, does anybody else — contrary to these claims of yours.
The Archbishop is assuming that a non Catholic can be saved with ‘elements of sanctification’ and that he personally knows these cases.Here is the error.
No. He. Doesn’t.
The actual “error” here is that YOU are reading far too much into these comments than he has put there in the first place.
I mean, to suggest that Di Noia is claiming that extraordinary salvation of non-Catholics by God is some sort of “ordinary means of salvation” is NOT supported by any actual quotes from him, but ONLY on your own personal negative bias.
His error is at the basis of the Society of St. Pius X’s rejection of Vatican Council II. Since for them Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 16) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are ‘known’ exceptions. So they reject Vatican Council II, which for them, has changed the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.
Augustine Di Noia, Luiz Ladaria, Kurt Koch, Bernard Fellay, Richard Williamson….all assume there are known exceptions.
For the Vatican Curia there are known exceptions and so they accept one version of Vatican Council II. For the SSPX there are known exceptions and so they reject Vatican Council II.
This passage appears not to make any sense whatsoever.
The writing is as confused as the underlying theology seems to be, and one is left with the impression that the word “exceptions” is being used simultaneously as a noun, a pronoun, and an adjective, leaving it totally unclear what it’s supposed to actually designate in the first place !!
So Augustine di Noia says the SSPX are in schism. He is not in schism because he assumes there are defacto, explicit exceptions to the dogma.
This is complete rubbish — the schismatic actions by SSPX are disciplinary in nature, not doctrinal.
Quite apart from which, your entire interpretative approach of who said what and why is replete with the typical methodology of conspiracy theory enthusiasts.
He does not realize that his concept of Vatican Council II is a hermeneutic of rupture.
In FACT – your own biased interpretations of his comments, and conclusions derived therefrom, provide the very state of rupture that you’re describing — but NOT Di Noia’s comments themselves, that appear on the contrary to be quite straightforwardly orthodox.
If he accepted that there are no known exceptions, he would interpret Vatican Council II as a hermeneutic of continuity. This would mean Vatican Council II would be saying Judaism and Protestantism are not paths to salvation. LG 16 and LG 8 would not be exceptions to the dogma.
You give me the impression that you do not understand “hermeneutic of continuity” or “hermeneutic of rupture”, nor indeed just plain old “hermeneutic”.
None of these things can be determined by focusing on one single question, particularly when the question is complex in the first place, and allows multiple interpretations — detail analyses do not provide a hermeneutic.
It’s exactly the other way round. A hermeneutic is a *method* of interpretation, which in turn provides the bases for various detail analyses and opinions — regardless of whether or not these analyses and opinions are always in full agreement with the corpus of source materials in every excruciating little detail.
The hermeneutic of continuity is the methodology whereby doctrine, both old and new, is interpreted according to the generalities and the fundamentals of the Catholic Tradition and the Catholic Orthodoxy.
The hermeneutic of rupture is the methodology whereby doctrine, both old and new, is interpreted by the prism of a personal opinion, any principle of a priori disagreement with the Tradition or the Orthodoxy, and any related agitation suggesting that Vatican II, or whichever particular doctrinal source materials, can have modified the nature of the Tradition or the Orthodoxy in themselves.
In other words — your own comments on this and related topics, generally speaking, are part of a hermeneutic of rupture, rather than the hermeneutic of continuity.
If he says there are no known exceptions, his concept of Vatican Council II will change. He would have to choose the Anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II and then the Jewish Left will protest.
Di Noia can mention of course those saved with God’s grace. However no document of Vatican Council II says that they are exceptions to the dogma. He has to imply it personally and please his friends.
Sorry, but this interpretation seems to be paranoid.
The SSPX bishops and priests do not know what is happening. Since they too believe that there are Protestants who can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire etc and these cases can be explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
This doctrinal interpretation, OTOH, is just flat out WRONG.
That there are Protestants and other non-Catholics who can be saved by Almighty God is part and parcel of the traditional interpretation of the dogma !!!!
These exceptions to the ordinary pathway to salvation of Catholicity are NOT exceptions to the dogma, because the dogma itself describes these exceptions !!!
If dogma describes exceptions, then those exceptions can hardly be contrary to that dogma, can they ???
Your problem continues to be that you are basing your interpretations on a badly translated copy of Unam Sanctam, which grossly distorts the significance of the doctrine, thereby helping provoke these interpretative errors on your part.
If they knew what was happening they could choose the anti Semitic version of Vatican Council II.It would be in harmony with their values on Judaism and other religions.
Another wild conspiracy theory.
curses !! too much bold text in that one !!
Who is in schism?
There is an interpretation of Vatican Council II which has a continuity with the past and is not a hermeneutic of rupture. This understanding of Vatican Council II is not that of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, the new Vice President of Ecclesia Dei.
So if the American Archbishop considers not accepting Vatican Council II as being in schism,as he told Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, then, it is he who is rejecting the rational interpretation of the Council.He needs to affirm Vatican Council II.
From the interview with Pentin, who asked the all important question on the salvation dogma, Di Noia clearly indicates that his interpretation of Vatican Council II is without the hermeneutic of continuity.
His reference to saintly Lutheran and Anglicans and the grace coming to those who are not Catholics is the give away sign.
He believes LG 8 and LG 16 are not implicitly known but explicit for us. So LG 8 and LG 16 refer to exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.This is the small clue to two interpretations of Vatican Council II and will decide who is in schism.
Since commonsense tells us that we do not personally know who has Sanctifying Grace among non Catholics and that those saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience are always implicit for us, LG 16 and LG 8 are always implicit. They are explicit only for God.
So we can have an interpretation of Vatican Council II with either:-
1) Implicit LG 8, LG 16.
2) Explicit LG 8, LG 16.
Archbishop Di Noia is clearly using the explicit Lumen Gentium 8 and 16 interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Those Catholics who interpret Vatican Council II with implicit LG 8,LG 16 are in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since LG 8,LG 16 are not explicit exceptions to the dogma.They are in accord with Tradition.So there is a continuity with the past.Vatican Council II is in accord with the traditional teaching on ecclesiology, other religions, ecumenism etc.
This interpretation has the hermeneutic of continuity that Pope Benedict XVI addressed and which Archbishop Augustine Di Noia mentioned in the NCR interview.
There cannot be two interpretations of Vatican Council II at the same time. We have to choose one.
We cannot choose the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which says LG 16, LG 8 are explicit and known to us.So we are left with only one interpretation of the Council.
This is not the interpretation of Archbishop Di Noia,nor of the cardinals Luiz Ladaria and Kurt Koch and neither of Bishops Bernard Fellay , Richard Williamson etc.
They hold the irrational version of Vatican Council II.
If tomorrow , the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) says LG 8,LG 16 is always implicit , every configuration on this issue changes.
-Lionel Andrades
There is an interpretation of Vatican Council II which has a continuity with the past and is not a hermeneutic of rupture. This understanding of Vatican Council II is not that of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, the new Vice President of Ecclesia Dei.
I completely disagree with this statement, given that it is based on speculation, unsupported inference, and doctrinal disinformation on your part, and your part only.
No statements of Di Noia, as you have provided them, are contrary to either the Tradition or the Orthodoxy.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 4, 2012
CDF THERE ARE TWO INTRPRETATIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II – YOURS IS THE FALSE ONE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/cdf-there-are-two-intrpretations-of.html#links
Thursday, July 5, 2012
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DI NOIA MADE A FACTUAL ERROR IN THE ITC PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS 1997
Archbishop Augustine di Noia from 1997 to 2002 was a member of the International Theological Commission(ITC). In 1997 they issued the theological paper Christianity and the World Religions (1) in which they made a glaring objective error. Along with Frs.Luiz Ladaria S.J, Charles Morerod O.P, Augustine Di Noia O.P assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Then they went a step further and postulated that since we know of these exceptions to the dogma there can also be exceptions for infants who die without the baptism of water. Instead of Limbo they go straight to Heaven (2). They were supported in these error by Pope Benedict XVI.
Since they assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma in the ITC papers they approved a ‘theology of religions’. Yet in the interview with the National Catholic Register Archbishop Di Noia is critical of the theology of religions.
The ITC paper also approved of an ecclesiology of communion based on the error of known exceptions to the dogma.
It is based on this very error that Bishop Bernard Fellay has probably received a list of theological conditions for the SSPX entry into the Church with canonical status. The SSPX bishops cannot refute those theological errors, since they also believe that there are known exceptions to the dogma, even though Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not make this claim. The founder of the SSPX only acknowledged that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance etc. He did not say that these cases were known to us or were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In his recent interview with La Stampa the American Vice President of Ecclesia Dei now holds the heretical position that Jews do not have to convert in the present times which is contradictory to the Bible, the Nicene Creed , the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7). This is also contradicting Dominus Iesus, which he once defended. Dominus Iesus 20 says God’s salvation is available for all, it is universal however to receive it the church is necessary. This is also the message of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times.
The Archbishop vaguely says the Church is necessary but also suggests that there are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Chruch.
-Lionel Andrades
I have no idea why you are engaged in this witch hunt against Archbishop soon-to-be-Cardinal Di Noia.
However, just FYI :
Non loqueris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium. /// You shall not speak false testimony against your neighbor. (Exodus 20:16)
–
Augustine Di Noia O.P assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are known to us
Given your UTTER refusal to face up to the fact that this statement is blatantly inaccurate, I am going to have to go a step further, and call you a LIAR.
You are spreading nasty lies, not based on anything more solid than your own prejudice, about a Bishop of our Church.
This is **shameful** behaviour !!! And DIRECTLY forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments, whereby I remind you that the spreading of false rumours to discredit the reputation of a person is a mortal sin.
since we know of these exceptions to the dogma
In fact, the contents of a dogma CANNOT be considered as exceptions to that dogma. God has a salvific power outside of baptism, which is an infallible Catholic doctrine that YOU are denying.
They were supported in these error by Pope Benedict XVI.
I see that you consider yourself as more Catholic than the Pope — this attitude leads straightforwardly away from the Church, salvation, and into heresy.
May I point out that, rather ironically, you are in direct disobedience of the Bull Unam Sanctam that you’ve been quoting here so profusely in the first place, because you are very clearly defying the Papal Authority in this matter, contrary to the doctrine of Papal Authority provided by that infallible teaching.
You are engaging in the very modernism, relativism, and protestantism that you’re denouncing !!
He did not say that these cases were known to us or were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
NOBODY has said so !!! AND the contents of a dogma CANNOT be exceptions to that dogma.
In his recent interview with La Stampa the American Vice President of Ecclesia Dei now holds the heretical position that Jews do not have to convert in the present times
This is a barefaced LIE.
He said NOTHING of the sort.
Also, you have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to describe the vice President of Ecclesia Dei a “heretic”, whereas it is in fact at one and the same time a mortal sin to spread such unsubstantiated and mendacious slanders about, as well as an act of apostasy and schism to promote these anti-Catholic views of yours.
I am shocked and scandalised by your behaviour towards Archbishop Di Noia !!!
Jabba,
On this post you call me a modernist and then you also say I am expressing orthodoxy. You criticize the Pope on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then later you agree with him. You deny the dogma and then you also affirm the dogma.
What am I too say?
HERE IS THE DOGMA
o “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
HERE IS JABBA
This doctrine is not only fallible ; it’s self-evidently flawed.
The Pope has no authority whatsoever to declare anybody as saved or unsaved, because such Authority resides in the individual relationships between individuals and God.
from this post above.
from this post above:-
On May 16 Cardinal Kurt Koch said that Jews do not have to accept the New Covenant for salvation and they do not have to convert. There is no mission to them.
Jabba says on this post above
This, also, is untrue.
What he actually said was : “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.”
L’Osservatore Romano does not carry Cardinal Kurt Koch’s statement on Jews not having to convert in the present time and there is no mission to them- conditions for the SSPX canonical acceptance
The cardinal’s May 16 questions and answers with reporters at the Angelicum University have been omitted in which it was suggested that the New Covenant Jesus made with his blood was not important and Jews were saved under the old covenant.
Jabba:
The reason for this “omission” is that he never said anything of the sort, and that this story is an invention of some anti-Vatican agitators.
Cardinal Kurt Koch was contradicting the Bible, the Nicene Creed , Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He was saying non Catholics are saved in general with Original Sin.
Here is the original CNS report
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202023.htm
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/kochs-sspx-must-accept-jews-do-not-have.html
CNS) — The Catholic Church’s relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, “are binding on a Catholic,” said the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews. Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke to reporters May 16 after delivering a speech on Catholic-Jewish relations in light of Vatican II’s declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the church’s relations with non-Christian religions.
The afternoon speech followed Cardinal Koch’s participation in a meeting of the doctrinal congregation to examine the latest progress in the Vatican’s reconciliation talks with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.
“There are questions to clarify in discussions with this community. I can’t say more than that,” he told reporters, echoing a Vatican statement saying the reconciliation talks are ongoing.
In addition to the highly publicized position of Bishop Richard Williamson, an SSPX bishop who denies the Holocaust, public statements by the society’s superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, leave in doubt whether the society as a whole accepts the entirety of “Nostra Aetate,” including its condemnations of anti-Semitism and of the idea that the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus.
“All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts,” Cardinal Koch said when asked if the SSPX would be expected to accept all the teachings of Vatican II. “The ‘Nostra Aetate’ declaration of the Second Vatican Council is a clear decree and is important for every Catholic,” he added.
At the same time, Cardinal Koch said, “it is very necessary to make clear the difference between the position of the Society of St. Pius X and the negation of the Shoah (the Holocaust), which is a position that has no place in the Catholic Church. It is very clear.”
Following the revelation of Bishop Williamson’s comments about the Holocaust, SSPX leaders issued a statement saying his position in no way reflected the views of the society. “I’m very happy about this,” Cardinal Koch said. “The Holy Father has spoken clearly about this position of Williamson, that it’s not possible, there is no place for deniers in the Catholic Church.”
In his speech at Rome’s Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Koch said “Nostra Aetate” is “the ‘foundation document’ and the ‘Magna Carta’ of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism.”
The declaration highlighted the Jewish roots of Christianity and took “an unambiguous position against every form of anti-Semitism,” he said.
The church’s theological reflection on its Jewish roots, as well as on the relationship between God’s covenant with the Jewish people and the new covenant instituted by Christ have been developed further and authoritatively by Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, he said.
God’s plan of salvation for humanity began with his covenant with the Jewish people and if Christianity ignores that, he said, “it is in danger of losing its location within salvation history.”
Cardinal Koch said that for Pope Benedict, the key to the theological understanding of the importance of a relationship with Judaism and Jews is that the Bible is one book detailing the entire history of salvation.
While Catholics profess that, in the end, all salvation will be accomplished through Jesus Christ, “it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the son of God,” the cardinal said. “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.”
On this post you call me a modernist and then you also say I am expressing orthodoxy. You criticize the Pope on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then later you agree with him. You deny the dogma and then you also affirm the dogma.
What am I too say?
That you pay no attention to my responses, maybe ?
For example :
You endlessly keep on quoting a translation of Unam Sanctum as the following : “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” — except that this is a TERRIBLE translation, which warps the meaning of the doctrine away from the truth of it.
Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Is not only the better translation, but it is ALSO coherent with the Fifth Lateran Council’s explanations of Unam Sanctam, in their declaration of the doctrine’s infallibility. It also fails to support your claims, based as they are on a 19th century catholicity that was based on some extremely flawed deterministic notions having nothing to do with Catholicity as such. Modernism is, in fact, an invention of the 19th century.
And I have already explained, and at much length, the reasons why that ghastly translation of the Papal Bull should be completely abandoned and ignored.
Also — to describe one paragraph that you wrote as being “orthodox” is NOT to provide any sort of blanket approval of all of your writings ; which in fact I do NOT.
HERE IS JABBA
This doctrine is not only fallible ; it’s self-evidently flawed.
Yes well, Lionel, there is no need to provide any further evidence of your obvious expertise in the art of taking a quote out of context, is there.
The doctrine I was referring to is not the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc, nor any other infallible or Authoritative doctrines ; it was a doctrine personally provided by whichever Pope you were quoting, and I stand by my original criticism of that Pope’s personal views and teachings, that I am not required to cleave to de fide or otherwise should I personally disagree with them, which I do.
(you DO I hope understand that the word “doctrine” means “teachings” ???)
The Pope has no authority whatsoever to declare anybody as saved or unsaved, because such Authority resides in the individual relationships between individuals and God.
This quote from me however, is correct — you will, however, take note that it criticises no expression by any Pope of any necessary beliefs.
——
You continue in your spectacular failure to see that “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.” (Cardinal Koch) and “Jews do not have to accept the New Covenant for salvation and they do not have to convert.” (your grossly warped interpretation) are NON-IDENTICAL statements.
Also, you FAIL to understand that “an unfathomable divine mystery” is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of your ludicrous claim that anybody at all has said that “those saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are known to us”.
HOW on EARTH can an unfathomable divine mystery be “known to us” ??? HOW on EARTH do you expect people to believe your strange logic that unfathomable divine mysteries might be described as claims of “knowledge” about the destination of individual human souls in the Afterlife ???
There is no logic in your claims, you keep on quoting your BAD TRANSLATION of Unam Sanctam like a broken record, and you flat out refuse the Authority of Council, Magisterium and Pope on this question — not some non-binding personal opinion of this or that past Pope, but the clear and deliberate and constant Magisterial and Papal interpretation of infallible doctrine.
You criticize the Pope on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then later you agree with him. You deny the dogma and then you also affirm the dogma.
I have not criticised “the Pope”, YOU have — I have limited my criticism to one statement by an earlier Pope, that contained no doctrinally binding lessons in the first place.
I do NOT deny the dogma — I’m taking great pains to point out that YOU are denying the dogma, because you are basing your appraisal of it on a BAD TRANSLATION, that betrays the precise meanings in the text, as well as betraying the specific doctrinal teachings of the Fifth Lateran Council.
There can be people saved by God despite that they outside the Earthly Church during their mortal lives — this is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The question of the relationship between Israel and God, via the Old Covenant, is a highly complex question, that has been debated to and fro for around 2000 years, but it is theologically unquestionable that the Old Covenant, at the very least prior to the Passion of the Christ, was for many centuries the only path to salvation. The Church has at various times supported various conflicting views on the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New, and it would be very foolish to describe the possibility of the salvation of some or other individual Jews via that Covenant even after the Passion of our Lord as anything other than “an unfathomable divine mystery.”
I’m tempted to quote Bob Dylan : “God don’t make promises that He don’t keep.” (Bob Dylan, “When You Gonna Wake Up ?”, Slow Train Coming, 1979)
The Catholic Church’s relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, “are binding on a Catholic,” said the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews.
Obviously though, Lionel imagines that he can make himself exempt from this very clearly expressed Catholic obligation.
He was saying non Catholics are saved in general with Original Sin.
NO HE WASN’T !!!!
How do you expect people to believe these fabrications of yours, when they can read the texts for themselves, and see that they contain NOTHING OF THE KIND ???
You endlessly keep on quoting a translation of Unam Sanctum as the following : “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” — except that this is a TERRIBLE translation, which warps the meaning of the doctrine away from the truth of it.
Lionel: You provided another translation and we agreed with the meaning above.You could not provide translations for the other two dogmas but you rejected them including the Council of Florence which says Jews need to convert to avoid Hell.
You deny a dogma and critize the translation when you cannot provide any.You also rejected Ad Gentes 7 which has the same meaning.Problem with translation on Vatican Council II ?
_______________________
Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Is not only the better translation, but it is ALSO coherent with the Fifth Lateran Council’s explanations of Unam Sanctam, in their declaration of the doctrine’s infallibility. It also fails to support your claims, based as they are on a 19th century catholicity that was based on some extremely flawed deterministic notions having nothing to do with Catholicity as such. Modernism is, in fact, an invention of the 19th century.
Lionel. Here again you deny those dogmas as something of the past.
___________________
And I have already explained, and at much length, the reasons why that ghastly translation of the Papal Bull should be completely abandoned and ignored.
Also — to describe one paragraph that you wrote as being “orthodox” is NOT to provide any sort of blanket approval of all of your writings ; which in fact I do NOT.
HERE IS JABBA
This doctrine is not only fallible ; it’s self-evidently flawed.
Yes well, Lionel, there is no need to provide any further evidence of your obvious expertise in the art of taking a quote out of context, is there.
Lionel: The whole context is in the post above .
_____________________
The doctrine I was referring to is not the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc, nor any other infallible or Authoritative doctrines ; it was a doctrine personally provided by whichever Pope you were quoting, and I stand by my original criticism of that Pope’s personal views and teachings, that I am not required to cleave to de fide or otherwise should I personally disagree with them, which I do.
(you DO I hope understand that the word “doctrine” means “teachings” ???)
The Pope has no authority whatsoever to declare anybody as saved or unsaved, because such Authority resides in the individual relationships between individuals and God.
Lionel: I have mentioned above that the Bible says some sins lead to Hell. If someone is a fornicatior and he dies without absolution in the Confessional he is going to Hell.If you say it always depends on someone’s personal relations then it means that are no laws of God there is not even natural law.One can live as a homosexual violate the natural law but for you that person would not be going to Hell since it depends on one’s individual relationship with God.
______________
This quote from me however, is correct — you will, however, take note that it criticises no expression by any Pope of any necessary beliefs.
——
You continue in your spectacular failure to see that “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.” (Cardinal Koch) and “Jews do not have to accept the New Covenant for salvation and they do not have to convert.” (your grossly warped interpretation) are NON-IDENTICAL statements.
Also, you FAIL to understand that “an unfathomable divine mystery” is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of your ludicrous claim that anybody at all has said that “those saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are known to us”.
HOW on EARTH can an unfathomable divine mystery be “known to us” ??? HOW on EARTH do you expect people to believe your strange logic that unfathomable divine mysteries might be described as claims of “knowledge” about the destination of individual human souls in the Afterlife ???
Lionel: I don’t understand what you are talking about here Jabba.
______________
There is no logic in your claims, you keep on quoting your BAD TRANSLATION of Unam Sanctam like a broken record, and you flat out refuse the Authority of Council, Magisterium and Pope on this question — not some non-binding personal opinion of this or that past Pope, but the clear and deliberate and constant Magisterial and Papal interpretation of infallible doctrine.
Lionel: I have quoted the Popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I have also agreed with the quote you provided from Catholic Planet. I have not made any changes or offered any personal suggestion. I agree -period with those quotes. So why do you say I do not accept the teachings of the Magisterium. It ‘s all here above on this post.
__________________________
You criticize the Pope on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then later you agree with him. You deny the dogma and then you also affirm the dogma.
I have not criticised “the Pope”, YOU have — I have limited my criticism to one statement by an earlier Pope, that contained no doctrinally binding lessons in the first place.
I do NOT deny the dogma — I’m taking great pains to point out that YOU are denying the dogma, because you are basing your appraisal of it on a BAD TRANSLATION, that betrays the precise meanings in the text, as well as betraying the specific doctrinal teachings of the Fifth Lateran Council.
Lionel: The dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.I agree with this.
_______________________
There can be people saved by God despite that they outside the Earthly Church during their mortal lives — this is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Lionel: We agree in principle that there can be people saved by God who are not visible members of the Church. I thought we also agreed that since we do not any of these cases personally it does not contradict the dogma.
______________________-
The question of the relationship between Israel and God, via the Old Covenant, is a highly complex question, that has been debated to and fro for around 2000 years, but it is theologically unquestionable that the Old Covenant, at the very least prior to the Passion of the Christ, was for many centuries the only path to salvation.
Lionel: Agreed.
___________
The Church has at various times supported various conflicting views on the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New, and it would be very foolish to describe the possibility of the salvation of some or other individual Jews via that Covenant even after the Passion of our Lord as anything other than “an unfathomable divine mystery.”
Lionel: For those who do not accept that the New Covenant is needed even by the Jews for salvation it is explained as a mystery.
____________________
I’m tempted to quote Bob Dylan : “God don’t make promises that He don’t keep.” (Bob Dylan, “When You Gonna Wake Up ?”, Slow Train Coming, 1979)
The Catholic Church’s relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, “are binding on a Catholic,” said the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews.
Obviously though, Lionel imagines that he can make himself exempt from this very clearly expressed Catholic obligation.
Lionel: Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Is this binding for you? See your response and that of Jennifer to this quote
above.You’ll only accept what you’ll LIKE ?
________________________
He was saying non Catholics are saved in general with Original Sin.
NO HE WASN’T !!!!
Lionel: If the Jews are saved with the Old Covenant and they do not need to News Covenant for salvation since it is a mystery for him they are saved in general in their religion. He is also not saying anywhere that they need to convert with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.(Vatican Council II ,AG 7).
_____________________
How do you expect people to believe these fabrications of yours, when they can read the texts for themselves, and see that they contain NOTHING OF THE KIND ???
Lionel:No one in the text is he saying that Jews need to convert in the present times to avoid Hell.
Neither are you saying it clearly even though you say you accept the dogma and Vatican Council II.He also want the SSPX to accept the same heresy.
You provided another translation and we agreed with the meaning above.You could not provide translations for the other two dogmas but you rejected them including the Council of Florence which says Jews need to convert to avoid Hell.
You deny a dogma and critize the translation when you cannot provide any.You also rejected Ad Gentes 7 which has the same meaning.Problem with translation on Vatican Council II ?
You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties — which means, really, that you should just STOP engaging in your assessments of doctrine, as they are likely to lead you nowhere but into Error or worse.
1) “we agreed with the meaning above” — this is NOT TRUE ; I have denounced this translation as wrngful at every step of the way. The truth is that YOU insist that a **translation** rather than the Latin is “correct”. WRONG.
2) “you could not provide translations for the other two dogmas” — In FACT I clearly stated that those two translations were entirely non-problematic. Why should I provide alternative translations for texts that I have no problem with ?
3) “you rejected them including the Council of Florence which says Jews need to convert to avoid Hell” a) NO I BLOODY WELL DIDN’T and b) Your presentation of the teaching of the Council of Florence is grossly distorted.
4) “You deny a dogma and critize the translation when you cannot provide any.” — This is GROSSLY UNTRUE. I affirm the actual dogma as expressed in the Latin, criticise the translation of ONE expression of the dogma provided by you, AND I provide a better quality translation. So that’s WRONG ON ALL THREE COUNTS.
Here again you deny those dogmas as something of the past.
How, exactly, is affirming a dogma to “deny” it ??
The only thing that I’m certainly denying is YOUR POOR QUALITY INTERPRETATIONS.
The whole context is in the post above .
Rubbish !!
I have mentioned above that the Bible says some sins lead to Hell. If someone is a fornicatior and he dies without absolution in the Confessional he is going to Hell.If you say it always depends on someone’s personal relations then it means that are no laws of God there is not even natural law.One can live as a homosexual violate the natural law but for you that person would not be going to Hell since it depends on one’s individual relationship with God.
This is just a pile of rubbish.
Of course — any person’s state of unrepentant sin is a PART of that individual’s relationship with God. Having whichever relationship with priests, the Church, bishops, or Popes does not provide salvation, but only one’s relationship with God — those other relationships are essential towards that purpose, both via the necessity of baptism and because they provide the essential teachings for one’s salvation, but the Church does not teach that the Earthly Church provides salvation, but that God provides salvation.
The Church is a PRODUCT of the work of salvation, not the other way round.
The individual relationship with God that provides salvation is ordinarily also an individual relationship within the Church, via baptism and all the Sacraments.
This does not mean that the cart should be put before the horse, as you seem to be keen on doing.
I don’t understand what you are talking about here Jabba.
Clearly.
Of course, that also means that you also don’t understand what YOU are talking about …
There is no “exception” to the dogma, because this so-called “exception” is a part of the dogma itself.
So why do you say I do not accept the teachings of the Magisterium.
Because your misinterpretation of the dogma is so spectacularly wrongful that it constitutes an objective disagreement.
The dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.I agree with this.
You might agree with it, but you fail to understand it — Cantate Domino is very clearly referring to conversion into the Celestial Church as necessary for salvation, and it does NOT of course deny the infallible doctrine that Sovereign Acts of God can provide salvation to individuals not belonging to the Earthly Church.
The Earthly Church is the Assembly of the Faithful — the Celestial Church is the assembly of the Saints (the saved). Salvation therefore NECESSARILY requires conversion to the Celestial Church. The ordinary state of such a conversion, in this world, is to be a baptised Catholic ; the Church therefore teaches that all should convert to Catholicism.
This teaching does nothing to remove or set any limits to God’s own Sovereign salvific Power.
That is what both Cantate Domino and extra ecclesiam nulla salus teach, and that you have so grossly distorted.
We agree in principle that there can be people saved by God who are not visible members of the Church. I thought we also agreed that since we do not any of these cases personally it does not contradict the dogma.
Yes, but YOU are saying extremely gratuitously that this or that Bishop or Cardinal of our Church has claimed any otherwise.
Your claims are both wrongful, and slanderous, and they shock me very deeply.
For those who do not accept that the New Covenant is needed even by the Jews for salvation it is explained as a mystery.
This is verging on an extremely arcane borderland between doctrinal theology and Christian Mysticism.
All of those saved participate in the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is in the Passion of our Lord the Christ, provided for all of mankind. He has simultaneously taught that baptism in the Spirit is necessary for salvation, and that baptism in water and spirit is necessary for the members of His Church.
All of those Jews saved by God for their Faith in the Old Covenant are ALSO saved in the New Covenant for all of mankind. That is the meaning of the “baptism of desire”.
This is an “unfathomable mystery”. It is also a subject of meditation and of the Christian tradition of Western mysticism.
Catholics are not required to engage in these mystical reflections — but we ARE required to accept the expression of these meditations as they have been provided in Catholic teachings, including specifically in the Vatican II documents.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Is this binding for you? See your response and that of Jennifer to this quote
above.You’ll only accept what you’ll LIKE ?
I accept the Revealed Truth, YOU’RE the one cherry-picking here, as well as doing everything in your power to ignore context.
Ad Gentes 7 concerns the missionary work of the Church, and the preaching of the Gospel.
It says : “Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.”
What AG 7 actually *condemns* is the willful rejection of God.
The truly and honestly faithful Jews do NOT reject God.
This does not contradict the necessity that the Gospel must be preached to all of mankind, including of course the Jews.
If the Jews are saved with the Old Covenant and they do not need to News Covenant for salvation since it is a mystery for him they are saved in general in their religion.
Simply repeating your poor analysis does not help to make it more convincing by repetition.
ALL of those who are saved are saved within the New Covenant, which exists for ALL of mankind. The New Covenant is not simply necessary for salvation — they are one and the same thing.
The MYSTERY concerns how the Jews can participate, in the eyes of God (NOT those of man), in the New Covenant through their faith in the Old Covenant.
This is outside of human knowledge — but Scripture also attests to this doctrine, that the truly Faithful among the Jews will be saved. In the words of Ad Gentes : “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him”
And that’s “inculpably” in God’s Eyes, not according to the feeble judgements of mankind.
He is also not saying anywhere that they need to convert with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
You are ill-placed to condemn the pastoral work of these Bishops and Cardinals.
Doctrine is SILENT on the question of how the faithful among the Jews will be saved, because this is in the Hands of God, not those of mankind.
This does not mean, just because he didn’t declaim the entirety of the Catholic doctrines of conversion, Catholicity, and salvation in this brief media interview, at least not to the sufficient satisfaction of your self, that he has rejected any unstated doctrines.
He also did not make any statements against “gay marriage”, about the Immaculate Conception, about the Sacrament of Confirmation, and a vasty plethora of numerous Catholic doctrines on every single doctrinal matter. Does that then mean that he has rejected all of those doctrines too ???
You are in no pace to judge these men, and it is a Grave Error, or worse, on the basis of your wrongful judgements to then go out and deliberately and explicitly condemn them ; basically, for not agreeing with one single bad English translation of a single doctrine — that I myself don’t agree with either, because that translation is a travesty of the Latin original.
Neither are you saying it clearly even though you say you accept the dogma and Vatican Council II.
How is it possible to signify one’s affirmation of dogma more clearly than to say so in plain words, as I have done ????
He also want the SSPX to accept the same heresy.
It is anathema to unjustly accuse a man of “heresy”, even moreso a Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope.
Catholic Dogma is NON-HERETICAL by definition. It is sinful to falsely accuse someone who has simply expressed orthodox Catholic teachings as being “heretical”.
Your twisted misinterpretations of some badly translated Church teachings do NOT constitute the contents of the dogmata.
1. You provided another translation and we agreed with the meaning above.You could not provide translations for the other two dogmas but you rejected them including the Council of Florence which says Jews need to convert to avoid Hell.
You deny a dogma and critize the translation when you cannot provide any.You also rejected Ad Gentes 7 which has the same meaning.Problem with translation on Vatican Council II ?
You seem to have reading comprehension difficulties — which means, really, that you should just STOP engaging in your assessments of doctrine, as they are likely to lead you nowhere but into Error or worse.
1) “we agreed with the meaning above” — this is NOT TRUE ; I have denounced this translation as wrngful at every step of the way. The truth is that YOU insist that a **translation** rather than the Latin is “correct”. WRONG.
Lionel: You provides a translation from Catholic Planet and I agreed with it. It was not different.
The message was all need to enter the Church.
_______________________
2) “you could not provide translations for the other two dogmas” — In FACT I clearly stated that those two translations were entirely non-problematic. Why should I provide alternative translations for texts that I have no problem with ?
Lionel: The text says Jews need to convert into the Church later in this post you will have difficulty with it.
_____________________________________
3) “you rejected them including the Council of Florence which says Jews need to convert to avoid Hell” a) NO I BLOODY WELL DIDN’T and b) Your presentation of the teaching of the Council of Florence is grossly distorted.
Lionel: I have not made any presentation of the teaching I just quoted the text. You said you have no difficulty with this text and you could not find an alternative.
_______________________________________
4) “You deny a dogma and critize the translation when you cannot provide any.” — This is GROSSLY UNTRUE. I affirm the actual dogma as expressed in the Latin, criticise the translation of ONE expression of the dogma provided by you, AND I provide a better quality translation. So that’s WRONG ON ALL THREE COUNTS.
Lionel: Your now saying that you have real the Latin and meaning according to you was different from the available translations.
_____________________________
Here again you deny those dogmas as something of the past.
How, exactly, is affirming a dogma to “deny” it ??
The only thing that I’m certainly denying is YOUR POOR QUALITY INTERPRETATIONS.
Lionel: You have indicated above that it is a thing of the past. You could not provide any translations for Cantate Domino.
The text of the dogma says every one needs to enter the Church.
_________________________________
The whole context is in the post above .
Rubbish !!
Lionel: Rubbish is that all you can say to explain yourself?
________________________________
I have mentioned above that the Bible says some sins lead to Hell. If someone is a fornicatior and he dies without absolution in the Confessional he is going to Hell.If you say it always depends on someone’s personal relations then it means that are no laws of God there is not even natural law.One can live as a homosexual violate the natural law but for you that person would not be going to Hell since it depends on one’s individual relationship with God.
This is just a pile of rubbish.
Lionel: You also have difficulty with this Biblical teaching.
The Catholic Church teaches that if you die with one mortal sin you are oriented to Hell.
_________________________________________
That is what both Cantate Domino Of course — any person’s state of unrepentant sin is a PART of that individual’s relationship with God. Having whichever relationship with priests, the Church, bishops, or Popes does not provide salvation, but only one’s relationship with God — those other relationships are essential towards that purpose, both via the necessity of baptism and because they provide the essential teachings for one’s salvation, but the Church does not teach that the Earthly Church provides salvation, but that God provides salvation.
Lionel: Yes God provides salvation in the Catholic Church which is His Mystical Body.
________________________________
The Church is a PRODUCT of the work of salvation, not the other way round.
Lionel: Jabba, the Church through the Sacraments is also a means of salvation.
________________________________
The individual relationship with God that provides salvation is ordinarily also an individual relationship within the Church, via baptism and all the Sacraments.
This does not mean that the cart should be put before the horse, as you seem to be keen on doing.
I don’t understand what you are talking about here Jabba.
Clearly.
Of course, that also means that you also don’t understand what YOU are talking about …
Lionel: I have been responding to what you have written. In this case I did not understand what you have been trying to explain here.
________________________________________
There is no “exception” to the dogma, because this so-called “exception” is a part of the dogma itself.
Lionel: The exception cannot be a part of the dogma since the text of the dogma does not mention any exception nor does it make allowances for any exeptions.
The ‘exceptions’ were brought into the Church in the 1940’s by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits and then they included them in Vatican Council II.
___________________________
So why do you say I do not accept the teachings of the Magisterium.
Because your misinterpretation of the dogma is so spectacularly wrongful that it constitutes an objective disagreement.
Lionel: I have provided you the text of Ad Gentes 7 along with the text of the dogma and have not provided any interpretation. Since I affirm the centuries old interpretation, the traditional one which says all need to enter the Church.
It’s is you who have difficulty with the text which specifically names Jews and other Christians.
_________________________________________
The dogma Cantate Domino Council of Florence says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.I agree with this.
You might agree with it, but you fail to understand it — Cantate Domino is very clearly referring to conversion into the Celestial Church as necessary for salvation, and it does NOT of course deny the infallible doctrine that Sovereign Acts of God can provide salvation to individuals not belonging to the Earthly Church.
Lionel: Agreed .It does not deny the infallible doctrine that Sovereign Acts of God can provide salvation to individuals not belonging to the Earthly Church. It accepts conversion into the Celestial Church. Good point! Well explained.
_____________________________________
The Earthly Church is the Assembly of the Faithful — the Celestial Church is the assembly of the Saints (the saved). Salvation therefore NECESSARILY requires conversion to the Celestial Church. The ordinary state of such a conversion, in this world, is to be a baptised Catholic ; the Church therefore teaches that all should convert to Catholicism.
Lionel:Correct!
This teaching does nothing to remove or set any limits to God’s own Sovereign salvific Power.
Lionel:Correct!
and extra ecclesiam nulla salus teach, and that you have so grossly distorted.
Lionel: I agree that a non Catholic can be saved by God in a manner known to him.I accept this as a possibility.I accept this in principle. I have mentioned this quite a few times here.
______________________________________________
We agree in principle that there can be people saved by God who are not visible members of the Church. I thought we also agreed that since we do not any of these cases personally it does not contradict the dogma.
Yes, but YOU are saying extremely gratuitously that this or that Bishop or Cardinal of our Church has claimed any otherwise.
Lionel: Yes but in another context. I do respect all the cardinals and bishops and would not think of criticizing their personality or character. I would not dare to.
But when they make an error on doctrine I point it out. It this not something I like doing.
Cardinal Kurt Koch in that CNS report nowhere says Jews need to convert for salvation.
This is not said also by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the three interviews he gave last week.
Then they imply that the SSPX must accept all this.
_______________________________________
Your claims are both wrongful, and slanderous, and they shock me very deeply.
Lionel: I have written the negative reports based on some statement of the cardinal or bishop.So it is not that I am just making accusations against them.
I mentioned that Cardinals Bertone and Bagnasco have said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time. I also provided the newspaper in which it was reported and the date and so it can be checked.
______________________________
For those who do not accept that the New Covenant is needed even by the Jews for salvation it is explained as a mystery.
This is verging on an extremely arcane borderland between doctrinal theology and Christian Mysticism.
Lionel: It is a Catholic teaching that Jews need to convert. This is a theme especially in the Gospel of St.John.
_________________________________
All of those saved participate in the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is in the Passion of our Lord the Christ, provided for all of mankind. He has simultaneously taught that baptism in the Spirit is necessary for salvation, and that baptism in water and spirit is necessary for the members of His Church.
All of those Jews saved by God for their Faith in the Old Covenant are ALSO saved in the New Covenant for all of mankind.
Lionel: Yes those who lived before the Resurrection and who are saved are saved through Jesus’ Death and Resurrection. They went to Heaven after the Resurrection-
That is the meaning of the “baptism of desire”.
Lionel: Usually in theology the baptism of desire refers to the case of a catechumen who wanted to receive the baptism of water and was going to receive it but dies before this was possible.
___________________________________________________________-
____________________________________
This is an “unfathomable mystery”. It is also a subject of meditation and of the Christian tradition of Western mysticism.
Catholics are not required to engage in these mystical reflections — but we ARE required to accept the expression of these meditations as they have been provided in Catholic teachings, including specifically in the Vatican II documents.
Lionel: If your referring to Jews needing to convert for salvation it is no mystery. It is not one of the mysteries of the Catholic Church.
_______________________________________
Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.Is this binding for you? See your response and that of Jennifer to this quote above.You’ll only accept what you’ll LIKE ?
I accept the Revealed Truth, YOU’RE the one cherry-picking here, as well as doing everything in your power to ignore context.
Lionel: Jessica above says she does not like a teaching so she will not accept. You also have said that it was diametrically opposed to what the Church teaches. I quoted Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma.
________________________________________________
Ad Gentes 7 concerns the missionary work of the Church, and the preaching of the Gospel.
Lionel: Yes this is also one aspect of Ad Gentes. However it means missionary work knowing that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell.
_________________________________
It says : “Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.”
Lionel: They are all oriented to Hell because of Original Sin and mortal sins committed in that state however if there are exceptions in ‘ways known to Himself’ God can saved them.
______________________________________________________-
_____________________________________
What AG 7 actually *condemns* is the willful rejection of God.
Lionel: LG 14 and AG 7 mentions those who know about Jesus and the Church as compared to those in ignorance. It is Jesus who will judge and he will know the difference.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7
________________________________________
The truly and honestly faithful Jews do NOT reject God.
Lionel: If there are honest and faithful Jews they will listen to the Holy Spirit and enter the Church Jesus founded.
They have Original Sin and commit mortal sins in that state.
In general the ordinary means of salvation for all is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
_____________________________________
This does not contradict the necessity that the Gospel must be preached to all of mankind, including of course the Jews.
If the Jews are saved with the Old Covenant and they do not need to News Covenant for salvation since it is a mystery for him they are saved in general in their religion.
Simply repeating your poor analysis does not help to make it more convincing by repetition.
ALL of those who are saved are saved within the New Covenant, which exists for ALL of mankind. The New Covenant is not simply necessary for salvation — they are one and the same thing.
Lionel: According to Dominus Iesus 20 one has to respond, one has to enter the Church for salvation. One has to respond to the New Covenant of Jesus.
_______________________________________
The MYSTERY concerns how the Jews can participate, in the eyes of God (NOT those of man), in the New Covenant through their faith in the Old Covenant.
Lionel: Jews need the New Covenant for salvation. When Cardinal Koch cannot say it in public then he says they are saved by the Old Covenant.
This is a rejection of Jews needing to convert in general into the Catholic Church. Why have mission as you have mentioned above if they are saved with the Old Covenant. Why was Jesus needed ?
Your position here is that of the Jewish Left. This is not the Catholic teaching.
____________________________
This is outside of human knowledge — but Scripture also attests to this doctrine, that the truly Faithful among the Jews will be saved. In the words of Ad Gentes : “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him”
And that’s “inculpably” in God’s Eyes, not according to the feeble judgements of mankind.
Lionel: We have agreed that there can be exceptions known to God only.
However in Boston, or New York or some other city all Jews with no exception need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and we do not know a single exception.
__________________________________
He is also not saying anywhere that they need to convert with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
You are ill-placed to condemn the pastoral work of these Bishops and Cardinals.
Lionel: Cardinal Kurt Koch never said that Jews need to convert. This is Catholic doctrine.
_____________________________________________________
Doctrine is SILENT on the question of how the faithful among the Jews will be saved, because this is in the Hands of God, not those of mankind.
Lionel: Doctrine is not silent. The dogma and AG 7 mention the means of salvation i.e the baptism of water.
________________________________________
This does not mean, just because he didn’t declaim the entirety of the Catholic doctrines of conversion, Catholicity, and salvation in this brief media interview, at least not to the sufficient satisfaction of your self, that he has rejected any unstated doctrines.
Lionel: He has not said that the Jews need to convert in two interviews. The Church teaches that hundreds of thousands of people are oriented to Hell unless they convert and he does not mention it?
_______________________________________________________
He also did not make any statements against “gay marriage”, about the Immaculate Conception, about the Sacrament of Confirmation, and a vasty plethora of numerous Catholic doctrines on every single doctrinal matter. Does that then mean that he has rejected all of those doctrines too ???
Lionel: He was speaking about the conditions for the SSPX’s entry into the Church with respect to Judaism.
________________________________________________________
You are in no pace to judge these men, and it is a Grave Error, or worse, on the basis of your wrongful judgements to then go out and deliberately and explicitly condemn them ; basically, for not agreeing with one single bad English translation of a single doctrine — that I myself don’t agree with either, because that translation is a travesty of the Latin original.
Lionel: As I mentioned above I do not condemn anyone of them I try and restrict myself to doctrine and theology.
If you call AG 7 also a travesty of the Latin original?
______________________________________________________-
_____________________________________
Neither are you saying it clearly even though you say you accept the dogma and Vatican Council II.
How is it possible to signify one’s affirmation of dogma more clearly than to say so in plain words, as I have done ????
Lionel: May be over time you will do it. Presently there still are some grey areas.
___________________________________________–
continued
___________________________________________–
_______________________________________________
He also want the SSPX to accept the same heresy.
It is anathema to unjustly accuse a man of “heresy”, even moreso a Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope.
Lionel: True.And this is not pleasant.
The Cardinal is denying the dogma (all available translations).
He is not affirming the Biblical teaching on the Jews (that’s putting it positively)
He wants the SSPX to do the same thing.
He is rejecting the Church’s teaching on the New Covenant.
He does not believe all Jews are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Church.
He does not believe that all Jews and Christians need Catholic Faith for salvation…
___________________________________
Catholic Dogma is NON-HERETICAL by definition. It is sinful to falsely accuse someone who has simply expressed orthodox Catholic teachings as being “heretical”.
Your twisted misinterpretations of some badly translated Church teachings do NOT constitute the contents of the dogmata.
Lionel: You can affirm Catholic dogma or you can change it into heresy.Now it has become so common that it seems non heretical just as sin no longer seems as sin .
_______________________
OK, God has signified to me that Lionel is to be ignored.
Lionel, may God protect you from your objective Errors !!!
Jabba,
It has been good discussing this issue with you. You seem a nice, sensible, sincere person.God bless!
Lionel