B
billpenn
Guest
Dear Friends,
I am struggling greatly with the following, and was hoping you would all be kind enough to share your opinions on it.
The following is from the Vatican’s website, the page on the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee’s 17th meeting (the italics and underlining are mine for emphasis).
Here is the link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20010504_new-york-meeting_en.html
"One of the difficult issues addressed by this 17th ILC meeting was the publication of Dominus Iesus. “Dominus Iesus”, Cardinal Kasper said, "is an intra-Catholic document about interreligious dialogue addressed to Catholic theologians concerning problems with relativism, syncretism, universalism and indifferentism. It does not enter into the JewishCatholic dialogue. It must be noted first that the relationship between the church and the Jewish people is unique. Second, Dominus Iesus does not call into question the salvation of Jews. Third, the Jewish covenant has not been revoked and remains salvifically effective for Jews. Fourth, Dominus Iesus must be understood properly within the context of Nostra Aetate, papal encyclicals and other official documents of the church regarding Judaism. Fifth, there is no missionary activity on the part of the church directed toward converting the Jews. Dominus Iesus is not the end of our dialogue. It is a challenge for our dialogue."
The underlined/italicized statement seems, to me, to be in direct contradiction to this:
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…"
Also from Cantate Domino:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
You can find the document from the Council of Florence here:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#2
Since this was promulgated by an ecumenical council of the Church, the above doctrine is therefore infallible…
Why then, was something put forth during the Liaison Committee’s 17th meeting that is in plain contradiction to this infallible doctrine? A doctrine that, due to its infallibility, I am bound to believe as Catholic, just as I am bound to believe that the Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven?
The Jews are discussed at the end of Nostrae Aetate of the Second Vatican Council, and I note that Nostrae Aetate does not set aside the pronouncements of the Council of Florence that I included above…therefore, where did Cardinal Kasper come-up with his statements? Surely, he too is bound to believe the Council of Florence’s pronouncements because of their infallibility.
I am struggling greatly with the following, and was hoping you would all be kind enough to share your opinions on it.
The following is from the Vatican’s website, the page on the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee’s 17th meeting (the italics and underlining are mine for emphasis).
Here is the link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20010504_new-york-meeting_en.html
"One of the difficult issues addressed by this 17th ILC meeting was the publication of Dominus Iesus. “Dominus Iesus”, Cardinal Kasper said, "is an intra-Catholic document about interreligious dialogue addressed to Catholic theologians concerning problems with relativism, syncretism, universalism and indifferentism. It does not enter into the JewishCatholic dialogue. It must be noted first that the relationship between the church and the Jewish people is unique. Second, Dominus Iesus does not call into question the salvation of Jews. Third, the Jewish covenant has not been revoked and remains salvifically effective for Jews. Fourth, Dominus Iesus must be understood properly within the context of Nostra Aetate, papal encyclicals and other official documents of the church regarding Judaism. Fifth, there is no missionary activity on the part of the church directed toward converting the Jews. Dominus Iesus is not the end of our dialogue. It is a challenge for our dialogue."
The underlined/italicized statement seems, to me, to be in direct contradiction to this:
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…"
Also from Cantate Domino:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
You can find the document from the Council of Florence here:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#2
Since this was promulgated by an ecumenical council of the Church, the above doctrine is therefore infallible…
Why then, was something put forth during the Liaison Committee’s 17th meeting that is in plain contradiction to this infallible doctrine? A doctrine that, due to its infallibility, I am bound to believe as Catholic, just as I am bound to believe that the Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven?
The Jews are discussed at the end of Nostrae Aetate of the Second Vatican Council, and I note that Nostrae Aetate does not set aside the pronouncements of the Council of Florence that I included above…therefore, where did Cardinal Kasper come-up with his statements? Surely, he too is bound to believe the Council of Florence’s pronouncements because of their infallibility.