- Status
C
Carlus_Magnus
Guest
I don’t believe what I’m reading. The Catholic Church authoritative reiterates the infallible scripture of Galations on the mosaic law and salvation, and this is seen as anti-Semitic!
says who? Who is the one who made this extrapolation?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence: “The most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the Mosaic Law cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. Every one, therefore, who observes circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the Law, the Church declares not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation”
That’s from an infallible document for those who don’t know, and it’s the teaching of the scriptures
On the works of the Law: "What St. Paul meant by the works of the old law, the “matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments” which some continued to follow , and St. Paul was telling them that that was an error, and that they no longer needed to place themselves under the works of the old law to obtain salvation. This is the theme throughout the whole of the same chapter [Romans 3]… In Galations 2 we see exactly what we saw in the council of Florence: “But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” that the old law is not salvific, and we can not put our faith in the functions of the old law for our salvation, but in Christ. We will now compare the two:
Council of Florence: “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.”
Romans: “But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
and now Florence and Romans:
Romans: “what is the profit of circumcision?… Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him.”
Florence: “the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law… 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…”
And also, we seek clarification from the Bible. Later in Galations 3, we see this “Is he the God of the Jews only?” clarifying that it is not by the law which the Jews follow, the mosaic law, by which the Jews followed as required in the Old Testament, we see works of the law, and circumcision, and Jews, all of this refers to the old law, by which we are not saved, but by the faith in Jesus Christ as confirmed by the Gospel “he who does not believe shall not be saved”.
The Council of Florence confirms this by stating that no one who follows the requirements of the law can be saved, this is exactly what St. Paul it telling the Romans and the Galations.
And if you want some theology manuals and doctors of the Church on the same, I got em, they all agree, the faith is necessary, the mosaic law does not confer salvation, and on the old law, Bob Sungenis has some excellent articles.
The Church cannot say now something contrary to what it has said, or else it is not divine, but human, and thus we need not bother with it, as it would not have the spirit of God, which does not change. The Church must be Catholic, that is, it must teach the same thing yesterday, today, and tommorrow, for the mission of the Church is to teach the word of God, which does not change “I am the Lord thy God, and I change not…”.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Who teaches me—The Church of course–but not the “church” of indifferentism. The Popes do not have to declare someone a heretic–
It is made known by a persons own words and/or actions—if they contradict—what the Church has always taught.
J
JReducation
Guest
The subscript is mine.
Before we go too fast, we have to ask ourselves what do the following statements made by the Pope and the Magisterium mean.
**839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.” The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are **irrevocable.” (CCC)
What part is irrevocable?
**"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. **For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church". (Pope John Paul II and CCC)
How can Christ use them as a means to salvation?
How is it that the Church teaches that they have not been deprived of signficance and value in the mystery of salvation, unless the Church believes that they participate in the Mystery of Salvation?
**“By God’s grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.” (Et Unum Sint, parr 11) **
Can we deny God’s grace?
According to the Holy Father, are other faiths still in some kind of communion with the Church that is not visible to us, but is visible to him? As Peter, would that be a legitimate claim?
“For this reason, the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of “every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult”. (Ibid, parr 29)
Doesn’t such language a “damned” and “heretics” fall under this directive?
Doesn’t such language on the part of Catholics make the work of the Church toward unity more difficult rather than easier? If so, aren’t some lay people on these threads making it more difficult to achieve unity, instead of helping?
"The Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity.” (Ibid, parr 94)
Was John Paul being soft or was he fulfilling his mission as the head of the Church? Could we have misjudged him? Does he not have the authority to work toward unity and find every possibility to make this a reality, even if it means looking a things from a different perspective from his predecessors, not condemning the, but looking from a different angle, like someone trying to put together a puzzle?
JR
M
mikee
Guest
I cannot speak for the authors of the Liaison Committee; but Catholic theological liturature even before Vatican II expressed the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved – however, only in union with the Church.
Let me emphasis the portion in Cantate Domino that qualifies the statement that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics cannot be saved:
Therefore to be saved requires being joined with the Church.
Does that require one become a Catholic? Again, another source from before Vatican II (from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office):
The above statement is straight from the mouth of the Congregation set up to safeguard the Church’s faith.
As for the old covenant. A good article I have found is from the ‘Lumen Gentleman’ site entitled: “The Covenant Never Revoked: Israel, God, and the Church”.
Let us know what you think.
J
JReducation
Guest
This was not an infallible statement, it was a position and a highly respected one too. But there are other perspectives that Pope Eugene did not consider, which other popes have added to what Eugene taught.
That being said, are you going to be so literal about this and tell me that my seven-year old little boy who was Jewish when he died in an auto accident, who observed the laws of circumcision and the Sabbath and other requirements of Judaic law cannot participate in eternal salvation?
Are you going to sit there and tell a father that his little boy is in hell, because of an encyclical whose content has been studied over and over again by the church and reworked. But because you want it to stick so literally, you’re going to tell me that my seven-year old is in hell?
I’d like to see you explain that to me, because I don’t believe any Catholic in good conscience and who practices and believes in Christ’s mercy would be so cruel.
JR
M
Mickey_Jackson
Guest
Wow…that really is a great article! I’m learning so much today!
S
stmaria
Guest
Since when? The SSPX disagrees with **Karl Rahner’s **Anonymous Christian not the Church. In my opinion Karl Rahner has it wrong. He is not infallible. I agree with the SSPX view of Anonymous Christian.I just read the rules of CAF. They forbid anyone to defend the SSPX as being right.
Take it up with the moderators.
JR
D
DustinsDad
Guest
If they are damned, they are damned because of not availing themselves to the only remedy for Hell…Our Lord Jesus Christ.
If they are saved, they were saved by Jesus Christ, which for adults means they had to have been invincibly and inculpably ignorant of Christ and HIs teachings and His Church and be free from all mortal sins committed through perfect contrition and be forgiven Original Sin through the gift of Baptism of Desire. Pray now that God gave them a special grace at the moment of their death - God’s outside of time and can do this sort of thing if He so chooses and if they accept the grace.
If a an unbaptized child before the age of reason dies, you are permitted to have a hope for her salvation in some ways “known to God alone” or the traditional and *merciful *teaching of the limbo of infants.
And with all this, keeping in mind that no one deserves Heaven, no matter how near and dear to our hearts they are - they, like us, can’t get to heaven because of anything other than God’s gracious mercy and accepting it and having it applied to us. God had done everything for each of us on that cross to get us there. The Catholic Church* is* His mercy in and of itself, born out of the water and blood pouring forth from His pierced side. If one chooses to reject this mercy by rejecting Christ and His Church, well, He gives us that free will. And if one raises his family in such a fasion, the one doing this will have to give an account.
We will have to answer for what we do, and what we fail to do. And we all need mercy…if we only admit this and ask for it - and dont’ presume that we are more merciful that Our Lord who died on the cross to save our souls. We never use our own rejection of Our Lord as “evidence” that He is not merciful, thus making us want to twist His Divinely Revealed Truth into something it’s not.
I’m sorry you had family members and friends that died outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church. You’re not alone. Join the club. Hope and pray that God worked a extraodinary miracle with them at the last moment of their lives in order to bring them into Heaven - and penance and fasting wouldn’t hurt either.
But please don’t purport to come in here and tell us that Divinely Revealed Truths - the infallible dogmas of the Church - are meaningless because you want some sort of heavenly guarantee of salvation for family members who died in the state of, objectively speaking, rejecting Christ.
Christ again, being the only remedy for Hell.
DustinsDad
C
catharina
Guest
It is given to none of us to know who has died outside the grace of God whether they seem to us to be outside the Church or inside the Church. That determination is made by God Alone. Any who deem themselves fit to pass judgment on the soul of another must be aware that they are inviting judgment of themselves. All within the Church MUST know this.
J
JReducation
Guest
Your response is not only lacking in sensitivity and charity, but it is extremely offensive.
Please, do me a favour. NEVER RESPOND TO ONE OF MY POSTS AGAIN.
I can’t fathom a Catholic saying such a thing, especially in light of what the Catholic Church currently teaches us about God’s saving power for ALL people.
Thank you,
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Having said it this way, there is nothing objectionable to your statement. No one has to agree with Rahner.
I have read the man’s works over and over again and there are things that I disagree with and others that are too complicated for me to agree or disagree with, because his writing style is very Germanic.
JR
S
stmaria
Guest
Jr I am very sorry for your loss. I too have lost family members and friends. Some of them were not with Christ. I have a brother that is living in adultry. He is living in mortal sin. The Church teaches that those who die in mortal sin will go to hell. I pray that he will not go there but that is what the Church teaches.
Didn’t Jesus tell Judas that it would have been better if he had never been born?
A friend of mine is an atheist. When he dies he will go to hell. He is not invincibly ignorant. He rejects the belief in God. I can only go by the inspired word of God.
, Acts 4:12, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”
Should the Church keep everyone in invincible ignorance? Why try try to convert or teach the truth. The less they know the better, right? If my neighbor is a pagan should I let him remain pagan or am I obligated to try to save him through Christ?
Seems to me that every atheist, pagan, non-Christian would desire to go to heaven. Does that mean that they are all saved by baptism of desire? All desire to be saved. No one really wants to burn in hell. So I guess I will let my pagan neighbor stay as he is. I am sure that if he knew the truth he would desire to be baptized. But why take that chance? Seems only the believers in Christ have to worry about their salvation, the non believers are saved because they are anonymous christians.
Didn’t Jesus tell Judas that it would have been better if he had never been born?
A friend of mine is an atheist. When he dies he will go to hell. He is not invincibly ignorant. He rejects the belief in God. I can only go by the inspired word of God.
, Acts 4:12, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”
Should the Church keep everyone in invincible ignorance? Why try try to convert or teach the truth. The less they know the better, right? If my neighbor is a pagan should I let him remain pagan or am I obligated to try to save him through Christ?
Seems to me that every atheist, pagan, non-Christian would desire to go to heaven. Does that mean that they are all saved by baptism of desire? All desire to be saved. No one really wants to burn in hell. So I guess I will let my pagan neighbor stay as he is. I am sure that if he knew the truth he would desire to be baptized. But why take that chance? Seems only the believers in Christ have to worry about their salvation, the non believers are saved because they are anonymous christians.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Try as you might and as you will, but you can not make the Church into something other than what it is - and it is Truth.
Something about the Church not being a democracy comes to mind.
And you can point to nothing of what I wrote that is contradicted by any Church teaching, only to your erroneous understanding and twisting thereof. In fact, I merely repeated what the Church teaches and has always taught. Period. Truth cannot contradict truth.
DD
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That is the way it is currently going stmaria. It is no longer about Truth bringing freedom in Christ–but about keeping them in blindness–for it is much easier to be saved.
C
catharina
Guest
You are so mistaken.
It is Jesus Himself Who is Truth. I know that to be so because Jesus said it. Jesus describes His Church as “My Church” not as “Myself.” Yes, He is head of the Church but He does not describe His Church as Truth. Revise your thinking to fit with Christ’s.
That is, as has been written, “Put on the mind of Christ.”
J
JReducation
Guest
**"When this eschatological event takes place, we will understand better what St. Paul meant when he said that Israel is still loved by God “for the sake of their forefathers”, and that “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” We can conclude in this same spirit of hope, then, by listening again to the words of Cardinal Ratzinger: "… Israel still has some way to go. As Christians, we believe that they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God’s plans; rather, they still stand within the faithful covenant of God … It is in God’s hands, of course, just in what way, when, and how the reuniting of Jews and Gentiles, the reunification of God’s people, will be achieved."19 **
Thank God for the Holy See who offers hope instead of damnation for the Jewish people.
Isn’t this the example that all of us should be following?
JR
Thank God for the Holy See who offers hope instead of damnation for the Jewish people.
Isn’t this the example that all of us should be following?
JR
C
catharina
Guest
Whoever sets himself or herself up as the judge of another’s soul in relation to eternal salvation has made the self into God. We know that outside the Church there is no salvation. We know that the Church teaches the truth of Baptism by water, by desire, by fire. We cannot ever know what passes between another soul and Almighty God throughout the earthly life of that soul or at the moment of corporal death. To state otherwise is a LIE.
(To state otherwise also invites the judgment of Almighty God.)
(To state otherwise also invites the judgment of Almighty God.)
C
catharina
Guest
Yes, it is the example we should follow.
To judge the eternal fate of the soul of any other is forbidden to us.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church has repeated at least three times since Vatican II that other eccesial communities are not totally detached from her; therefore, there is the hope of salvation, even though the connection is a less than ideal connection.
Which part of this teaching are we missing here?
Vatican II, Ratzinger and John Paul have made this statement over and over again.
They have also said that the Lord uses other ecclesial communities as a means to salvation for their members, through the few connections that they have to the Catholic Church.
To deny that someone can be saved because he or she is not a member of the physical Church is to deny what the Holy Father himself taught on this matter. There are connections that we cannot see, but Christ sees and uses.
No one is saying that those connections are perfect. That would be like saying that a broken arm is a good thing. The bone is severed, but the arm is still part of the body and worth saving.
Just as a skilled physician will do everything in her power to save the arm, so does the Divine physician do everything in his power to save those who are not in full communion with the Church. This is a message of hope, rather than doom and gloom.
JR
- Status