A Contradiction?

[SFD]

Sorry, I was still editing my post when you replied to it. Please read it again.

Dominus Iesus was an Act of the Apostolic See. Not everything a cardinal says is to be understood as an Act of the Apostolic See. As you know, doctrine and dogma differs from theological opinion.

Well, then…I still respond:

There’s nothing but confusion here…but it is not confusion from Rome…it’s confusion between what Rome says and what Catholics who favor tradition believe. Let Benedict XVI sort this out…he should be pressed to clarify this issue.

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well, then…I still respond:

There’s nothing but confusion here…but it is not confusion from Rome…it’s confusion between what Rome says and what Catholics who favor tradition believe. Let Benedict XVI sort this out…he should be pressed to clarify this issue.

SFD

A lot less confusing than being your own pope, or waiting for that really looooooooooong intergnum period which has existed since Pope St. Peter I to finally end.

 

[SFD]

Sorry, I was still editing my post when you replied to it. Please read it again.

Yes, editing makes responding more complicated.

Dominus Iesus was an Act of the Apostolic See. Not everything a cardinal says is to be understood as an Act of the Apostolic See. As you know, doctrine and dogma differs from theological opinion.

Sure…although I see some serious problems with Dominus Iesus.

The ordinary teaching of the Church comes to me from the 1) Roman Pontiff, 2) my diocesan bishop, and my parish priest. When neither Cardinal Dulles nor Cardinal Kaspar are acting in this ecclesiastical “chain of command,” their “quotes” may (or may not be) edifying, but they are certainly not doctrinally binding.

Nobody said it was binding…just that it was wrong. Wrong stuff isn’t binding anyway is it?

Those who present this as “confusion from Rome” ought to have a better understanding of Catholic theology before making such absurd claims. There has always been confusion in the Church, as was pointed out by the early father’s and their teaching on apokatastasis.

There should be no confusion on this issue…it is already settled.

However, the writings of clergy do not constitute the deposit of faith.

No, but the preaching of the Ecclesiastical Magisterium is the rule of Faith.

One ought to understand and assent to Catholic doctrine according to the mind of the Roman Pontiff, who can never promulgate heresy as an Acta Aposotlicae Sedis.

Then let him clarify this issue and we’ll see where he falls.

SFD

 

[SFD]

A lot less confusing than being your own pope, or waiting for that really looooooooooong intergnum period which has existed since Pope St. Peter I to finally end.

Dave,

I’m sure it will be shorter that the time it will take you to return from the Vehr Theological Library.

SFD

 

[Joe_Kelley]

He’s President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Are you saying he has no authority at all? Do you think that just because he’s not the Pope, he has no authority in the Church?

SFD

It is my understanding that Pontifical Councils are there to provide consultation to the pope. They are advisory bodies. Their statements become authoritative only when issued by the Pope.

This is in distinction to the Congregations which can issue statements in their own name; though I think they are run by the pope before they are issued. They are executive bodies.

If you want to compare to the military the Councils are staff officers; the Congregations are line officers.

 

[SFD]

It is my understanding that Pontifical Councils are there to provide consultation to the pope. They are advisory bodies. Their statements become authoritative only when issued by the Pope.

This is in distinction to the Congregations which can issue statements in their own name; though I think they are run by the pope before they are issued. They are executive bodies.

If you want to compare to the military the Councils are staff officers; the Congregations are line officers.

A quick look at the pre-Vatican II explanation of the Roman Congregrations, the Roman Offices, and the Papal Commissions reveals no evidence of them ever containing any ill advised “loose canons” saying things everyone best ignore.

Btw, what ever happened to the Holy Office identifying and applying the canonical censures for heresy and “those acts making one suspect of heresy”?

What happened to the Congregration of the Index?

SFD

 

[JReducation]

Hi Bill

I’m going to try to help you sort this out a little at a time. There is a lot in your post, so I can’t do it all at once. I do have formal studies in theology and have worked for the Church for many years. I think I understand a little bit of what’s going on here. I’m not a scholar, but I think I can navigate through some of this.

The following is from the Vatican’s website,

****"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. ****

He’s saying that the original document was for theologians. It was not meant to be applied outside of the Catholic Church. The issue had nothing to do with the Jews but with these other problems that I underlined in your citation. He’s upset that the document was applied and used incorrectly. The laity is often guilty of this.

**

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.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

We can question John Paul II’s prudence in allowing the Cardinal to remain in his position, although as a previous poster pointed out, there have been many instances in which Popes have found it expedient to not remove officials who have taught heresy. It’s his decision, and any personal culpability that he may have incurred is a matter between him and God.

However, I don’t think anyone who has read Redemptoris Missio can honestly say that JPII adheres to Kasper’s heresy. He clearly recognized the need to proclaim Christ to all nations, and one would assume that that means the Jews as much as anyone else. This encyclical, together with Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Exhortion on evangelization (the name escapes me at the moment), should reassure anyone flirting with Radical Traditionalism that the official teachings of the Church and of the Popes have not changed.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

In addition the Church also teaches that it is not her mission to convert the Jews, but hopes and prays that they will discover the fullness of redemption. The Catholic Church will not engage in a campaign to convert the Jews, but we pray for their conversion. No campaigning for their conversion is different from not wanting it. It is a diplomatic move on the part of the Church. In her wisdom the Church knows when to back off and let the grace of God take care of things. An attempt to actively convert the Jews may prove to be a disastrous plan. It can easily be interpreted as anti-semiticsm. That would push the Jews away, rather than draw them closer.

I would disagree with your statement that it is not the Church’s mission to convert the Jews. As I mentioned, JPII clearly taught that the mission of evangelization applies to everyone, and that dialogue is *a means to achieving *the goal of conversion. What I think you are trying to say is that the Church uses different means than before to carry out this mission.

Bishop Fulton Sheen said something similar about the Muslims. He noted that the Church had been sending missionaries to the Islamic world for 1400 years with no success. Because of this, he said that the best way to bring about their conversion might be for Catholic missionaries to encourage and foster the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary that exists within the Islamic faith, and trust that she would eventually lead them to her Son. John Paul II, based on his statements and writings, seems to want to use a similar method for the Jews, using the great common ground that we share with them.

But for Cardinal Kasper to say that the Church should not work at all for the conversion of the Jews is incorrect, and to say that the Old Covenant has not been revoked is, by dogmatic definition, heretical. We can trust that God in His mercy will save those who remain outside of the Church through no fault of their own, but we must always accept and proclaim that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of Truth. Again, if you haven’t already, read Redemptoris Missio; it says everything I have just said, but in a much more eloquent way

 

[JReducation]

We can question John Paul II’s prudence in allowing **the Cardinal **to remain in his position, although as a previous poster pointed out, there have been many instances in which Popes have found it expedient to not remove officials who have taught **heresy./**U] It’s his decision, and any personal culpability that he may have incurred is a matter between him and God.

However, I don’t think anyone who has read Redemptoris Missio can honestly say that JPII adheres to Kasper’s heresy. He clearly recognized the need to proclaim Christ to all nations, and one would assume that that means the Jews as much as anyone else. This encyclical, together with Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Exhortion on evangelization (the name escapes me at the moment), should reassure anyone flirting with Radical Traditionalism that the official teachings of the Church and of the Popes have not changed.

I think that you may want to be careful with this kind of language. It is against CAF policy to allow us to call anyone heretic, especially a public figure of the Church. You can be banned for that or the thread can be closed. This is an intersting point that the OP brings us, that has some very logical explanations, regardless of what people may think of the Cardinal.

Also, you can get CAF into trouble with the local bishops if they were to get wind that CAF allows people to do this. I read a concern about another forum, not CAF, in a Catholic Paper about offensive language in Catholic forums and threads. I checked out the forum and they are really very offensive.

JR

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

In her wisdom the Church knows when to back off and let the grace of God take care of things.

Very true indeed. In the century of the Holocaust, it probably was a wise move to lay off the Jews a bit.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I think that you may want to be careful with this kind of language. It is against CAF policy to allow us to call anyone heretic, especially a public figure of the Church. You can be banned for that or the thread can be closed. This is an intersting point that the OP brings us, that has some very logical explanations, regardless of what people may think of the Cardinal.

Also, you can get CAF into trouble with the local bishops if they were to get wind that CAF allows people to do this. I read a concern about another forum, not CAF, in a Catholic Paper about offensive language in Catholic forums and threads. I checked out the forum and they are really very offensive.

JR

Sorry I’m sort of jumping around here

But you’re right, I should be careful. Mea culpa! Ultimately, Cardinal Kasper, like each one of us, will be judged by God, Who alone knows what dwells in the hearts of men. I will continue to disagree with the Cardinal’s statements and to express this disagreement when given the opportunity, but I will try to do so more charitably. I think it was St. Thomas who said that in our zeal for Truth, we should never forget that our ultimate duty is Love. In that spirit, thanks for correcting me.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry I’m sort of jumping around here

But you’re right, I should be careful. Mea culpa! Ultimately, Cardinal Kasper, like each one of us, will be judged by God, Who alone knows what dwells in the hearts of men. I will continue to disagree with the Cardinal’s statements and to express this disagreement when given the opportunity, but I will try to do so more charitably. I think it was St. Thomas who said that in our zeal for Truth, we should never forget that our ultimate duty is Love. In that spirit, thanks for correcting me.

No big deal Mickey. Thanks for your shining example of humility.

Now . . . a clarification. When I said it was not the Church’s mission to convert the Jews, I’m not speaking about divine mission. Evangelization is certainly the Church’s divine mission.

I’m using the word in more secular terms. The Church does not have a compaign to prostelitize the Jews. She certainly wants them to discover the fullness of redemption, thus she prays for them.

But she must be careful how she goes about it. The Fulton Sheen example that you provided was excellent.

Good evangelization also uses good methodology.

In the case of the Jews, Muslims and Orthodox, the best methodology is a call to dialogue and cooperation on those matters that we have in common. It’s a slow process, but may be more effective than going in with missionaries and campaigns.

And as John Paul II has correctly pointed out, “the saving power of Christ has used the faith of these other communities as a means to their salvation.”

Even though the communion is not perfect, there is something there with which the saving power of Christ can work. We don’t want to destroy that very thin thread that still links these other communities to the Catholic Church. That’s called burning your bridges. Not a good plan to do that.

As to the Cardinal, I’m not so sure that he is as bad as some people think. I believe that the problem between him and many lay people is that he is a scholar. He writes for other scholars. As a scholar he throws things on the table that are not really meant for public consumption, but for debate and consideration among theologians.

When the Pope went to Germany and gave his talk to the theologians and philosophers at the university on the Muslims, he was thinking like a university professor, which he was for many years. Little did he realize that it would be misunderstood. Look at all the back-peddling he had to do to help the leadership of the Muslim world understand that he was not tryig to offend them and that he did not subscribe to this position, but that he was just quoting someone.

I believe that the Cardinal, because he’s not the Pope, doesn’t always back up and explain himself so that the average man on the street knows what he’s talking about. Unfortunately, some of the things that he says, which may be purely scholastic speculation intended for other scholars to study and give feedback on whether they are right or wrong end up in the public eye. Once that happens all (blank) breaks lose.

When I was studying theology and philosophy we heard many things on the table that were meant for our ears only, not for the general public. They were meant for us to debate and conclude their validity or invalidity by comparing them to the Christian tradition. I’m very used to this kind of discourse. Not everyone is. If I were to say something about the Cardinal I would say that it may be a good thing to back up and explain what is meant to be believed by everyone and what is meant for scholars to evaluate and give feedback.

Do you get what I mean?

JR

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3488868].
They have a link with the Church, even though they are not part of the physical church. They are part of the Mystical Body.

JR, how can Jews be a part of the Mystical Body without baptism?

Mystici Corporis Christi Pius XII)
" Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. …".

HUMANI GENERIS
POPE PIUS XII
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith"

Even though the Jews don’t acknowledge Christ as the Messiah, does not mean that he isn’t their savior as well.

St John 2 :22
“Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”
Matthew 10:33 “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven”
John 3:3 “ Amen,amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”
John 14:6 “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me”

In addition the Church also teaches that it is not her mission to convert the Jews, but hopes and prays that they will discover the fullness of redemption

.
What Church teaching says is is not “her mission to convert the Jews”?

That there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church still holds true. What Pope Eugene had not considered, which Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have considered is that there are many people of faith who are spiritually connected to the Catholic Church,** even if they do not realize it**.

So you believe in the Anonymous Christian theory? I beleive that the SSPX has it right on this one. They believe that Anonymous Christian “is a very grave doctrinal error because it declares personal justification as being already realized for every man without any participation of his will or free choice and, so, without any need of his conversion, faith, baptism or works. Redemption is guaranteed to all, as if sanctifying grace were ontologically present in each man just because he is man.”

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Dear Friends,

I am struggling greatly with the following, and was hoping you would all be kind enough to share your opinions on it.

---

Hi Bill,
One of my own favorite personal sayings is," Religion is Man’s way of putting God into Man’s terms and he’ll screw that up everytime."
Whether Kasper has teaching authority is not the question that should be asked. He has the authority however that does not make it necessarilly infallible. The concept of infallible doctrine applies only to the office of the papacy. This office is not the pope alone but rather the pope in conjunction with the cardinals. So it is not the pope who is infallible but the Papal Office that is. That being a given then it is safe to assume that neither Kasper nor any other part of the Magesterium is infallible. It is only their theological opinion and it could be wrong.

One part of your post I did notice is Kasper’s statement that the Jews can have salvation through the Mosaic covenant. The problem with that is the Noahide covenant was never revoked either. Is Kasper stating that following that covenant is salvific also in itself? Didn’t someone we all know, worship and love say something about a new covenant in His blood?

All these encyclical letters and opinions can get confusing and bewildering. You need a special dictionary in some cases just to understand some terminology and vocabulary that seems to be exclusive to Church and theological documents and have little or no use beyond them. That leads me to another personal saying of mine, “We often wrap ourselves around with so many words that we fail to see the Word before us.” We tend to complicate things unnecessarilly and when that happens we need to simplify and get back to the basics.

What we need to realize is that God desires all mankind to be saved in His loving Grace. Why would God create the entire human race only to have a chosen few destined to be with Him through eternity? That makes no logical sense. He didn’t predestine anyone to salvation or condemnation. He merely knows the hearts of His chosen people (all of us) and our inability to fully accept the salvation He has offered. We speak of the salvation of those outside our Faith but how many of us are not prepared because we did not fully accept the salvation into our own lives. Plenty of us say we believe in the salvation of Christ. We want to believe in it but when it comes to practicing it, we fail more often than we suceed. The greatest heresy in the Christian Faith is professing Roman 10:9…“for if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God reased him from the dead, you will be saved…” and then not professing exactly what that means and entails. We need to consider and work to ensure our own salvation before we condemn others for their beliefs. We have no right to condemn and we have no power of ourselves to save. Only God can do that. The best we can do is to be willing and able to be one of God’s instruments when needed for the salvation of another.

So, keep it simple. Believe in the saving Love of God, believe in that salvation of Christ’s sacrifice for us. Know that God sends you to the Son and the Son leads you to the Father. Follow His path and when God sprinkles that path with hardships and opportunities, joyfully pick each and every one of them up and know why you do this and for whom you do it for.

Let the theological minds banter as they will. It’s what they do. The best advice on matters such as these actually came from a Jewish rabbinical leader and sage many years ago. You can read those words of Gameliel in the Acts 5:38-39. It was his advice to the Sanhendrin during the trial of Peter and John. " So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. FOr if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God."

These words of Gameliel can bear meaning for us today in our interaction with other faiths.

Of course, this is just my take on the matter. Other opinions may vary. lol.
Take care
Dennis

 

[catharina]

JR, how can Jews be a part of the Mystical Body without baptism?

Mystici Corporis Christi Pius XII)
" Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. …".

HUMANI GENERIS
POPE PIUS XII
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith"

St John 2 :22
“Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”
Matthew 10:33 “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven”
John 3:3 “ Amen,amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”
John 14:6 “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me”
.
What Church teaching says is is not “her mission to convert the Jews”?

So you believe in the Anonymous Christian theory? I beleive that the SSPX has it right on this one. They believe that Anonymous Christian “is a very grave doctrinal error because it declares personal justification as being already realized for every man without any participation of his will or free choice and, so, without any need of his conversion, faith, baptism or works. Redemption is guaranteed to all, as if sanctifying grace were ontologically present in each man just because he is man.”

maria, I’ve never heard of the Anonymous Christian theory. Maybe it’s be one of those VERY SPECIAL “teachings” that you share with your heroes in sspx. I believe in the Baptism taught by HMC and that includes Baptism by water, Baptism by fire and Baptism by desire. If you can’t figure out what JR is saying about the need for Jews to be brought into the fullness of their inheritance (as opposed to your imposition of “conversion”) then you have a lot to learn about Salvation History. The promise of the Messiah was made to the Jews - not to the Gentiles.

The fullness of faith was offered to the Jews long before the Gentiles were invited to partake of salvation. A Jewish person who accepts the Messiah, Jesus Christ Our Lord, is simply following his faith to its obvious and only conclusion. Gentiles who convert are brought from belief in false gods (or no gods) or error-ridden concepts of God (and faith) unto belief in Salvation through Jesus Christ and His Church. Jews who discover Christ are led to the fullness of their own faith with its Messianic promises. If you can’t yet see that distinction, perhaps you need to pray about it. As for Baptism, the Church teaches that it can take a number of forms - yes, some known to God Alone. It is interesting to note that you still believe that you can pick and choose among teachings from sspx even when they are in opposition to teachings of HMC.

As you well know, the founder of sspx was excommunicated and that should tell you a lot.

 

[Walking_Home]

JR, how can Jews be a part of the Mystical Body without baptism?

Mystici Corporis Christi Pius XII)
" Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. …".

HUMANI GENERIS
POPE PIUS XII
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith"

St John 2 :22
“Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”
Matthew 10:33 “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven”
John 3:3 “ Amen,amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”
John 14:6 “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me”
.
What Church teaching says is is not “her mission to convert the Jews”?

Quote:
That there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church still holds true. What Pope Eugene had not considered, which Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have considered is that there are many people of faith who are spiritually connected to the Catholic Church, even if they do not realize it.

So you believe in** the Anonymous Christian theory?** I beleive that the SSPX has it right on this one. They believe that Anonymous Christian “is a very grave doctrinal error because it declares personal justification as being already realized for every man without any participation of his will or free choice and, so, without any need of his conversion, faith, baptism or works. Redemption is guaranteed to all, as if sanctifying grace were ontologically present in each man just because he is man.”

---

Seems the “theology” of Karl Rahner is bearing “fruit”.

 

[JReducation]

JR, how can Jews be a part of the Mystical Body without baptism?

I would recommend that you read Et Unum Sint and The Ecumenical Directory of the Catholic Church as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding such topics as salvation to all peoples, the Jews and the Church’s plan for bringing all people into communion with the Catholic Church.

These may help dispel some of your concerns and see that the Church is not rejecting what has been taught, but looking at other perspectives as well.

Since none of here are the Pope or Council Fathers it is not our perrogative to judge what the Popes have said. Our duty is to try to understand.

It may help.

JR

 

[JReducation]

The concept of infallible doctrine applies only to the office of the papacy. This office is not the pope alone but rather the pope in conjunction with the cardinals. So it is not the pope who is infallible but the Papal Office that is. That being a given then it is safe to assume that neither Kasper nor any other part of the Magesterium is infallible. It is only their theological opinion and it could be wrong.

Actually it is a dogma of faith that the Pope is infallible and that he does not need the support or approval of the bishops.

The bishops are infallible when they unanimously, in Council, declare a doctrine. This is only possible when there is a reigning pope. Where the chair of Peter is vacant, such as between the time of a popes death and the election of a new pope, the bishops may not hold any kind of council nor teach anything new.

This was declared by Canon Law based on the decree of infallibility of Vatican I.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Just for clarification, ther term “anonymous Christian” was introduced into Catholic theology by Karl Rahner in the late 1970s. It was an idea, not a dogma of the Church.

Rahner presented an interesting question which some people have taken completly out of context and blown up.

His question was simple.

If we believe in Baptism of desire, which means that those who are not baptized would be if they knew and fully understood its necessity, then wouldn’t those people already be part of the Mystical Body?

Rahner goes on the explain that knowing is going beyond someone telling you that you need to be baptized, but it is at a deeper level. Knowing means being convinced in your conscience that this is absolutely necessary.

He explains, there are many people who are truly and honestly committed to living according to the truths that they DO know. Their reason for not being baptized is that they do not know what the Catholic Church believes at a level where they are really convinced that this is what God wants of them. Therefore, they are not baptized out of rebellion, but because they are mistaken in their understanding of God’s will for them. This mistake does not arise out of malice, but on the contrary. It arises out of fear of doing something against what they believe to be God’s will in their lives. In other words, they are trying to fulfill God’s will in their lives as best as they can understand it.

In reality, they are living the Christian vocation, which is to fulfill God’s will, even with their limitations.

Then Rahner poses the question, does this equate to a baptism of desire? If they truly knew, they would be baptized. If they are baptized by their desire to live according to the will of God and be united to God, would it be safe to call them anonymous Christians?

Rahner never said that this was a dogma or the Church nor has anyone else.

When John Paul II and Benedict XVI were Cardinals, they studied under Rahner. They took some of his ideas and pondered them. They did not declare Rahner’s questionto be a doctrine, because Rahner did not pose it as a doctrine. He posed it as something to be discussed and considered.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI agreed on one thing. The truth subsists in the Catholic Church and those who believe in any of the truths that the Catholic Church teaches, even if they are incomplete, because they do not believe in the entire truth, are somehow connected to the Catholic Church. Through this connection, the saving grace of Christ uses these other ecclesial communities as a means of salvation for their members, if they live according to the little that they know. The two popes agree that this is not the ideal situation and would like to see all people united under one Church, but it’s a beginning and that God in his mercy uses these thin threads to bestow grace.

They worked very hard on making this clear in the Ecumenical Directory and the encyclical Et Unum Sint.

They were not discrediting previous encyclicals, but were lookinig at the issue from another perspective and arrived at some logical theological conclusions that other popes had not considered.

Rahner’s question is just that, a theological question, not a theory. John Paul and Benedict pondered that question and came up with their own conclusions. They do not use term anonymous Christian, nor do they reject it. It is not on the table for adoption by the Church. It was put on the table for theologians to discuss.

It was not even put on the table for the laity to discuss, unless you’re a student of theology and philosophy.

Again, Anonymous Christian is just something that was placed on the table for discussion, not a teaching.

JR