Yes. The focus of Christian worship since the Apostles, the source and summit of the Christian faith; so important, really, that if we had no Eucharist we would have no Catholic Church (and no Eastern Orthodox and no Protestants), and yet it is tossed aside as something non-essential to being Christian. Yes, very strange.
I’m confused. Are you saying that the Eucharist is tossed aside as not essential to Christianity by the Apostolic Churches?
If you’re talking about the weekly adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, one can say that Christianity continues to be Christianity without this. However, we must say that the Eucharist as in the liturgy is central to the faith of the Apostolic Churches. Without the liturgy, the Apostolic Churches cease to be.
One could reasonably ask the question whether or not this had been taught in the Tradition of the Church prior to Vatican II. I know that Vatican II is not supposed to have taught any new doctrine, so if this position does indeed rise to the level of doctrine which one must assent to under the pain of sin, then it stands to reason that it should have been taught prior to the council.
I’m not trying to be that guy, I honestly do not know if it has been taught prior to Vatican II, or if this teaching rises to the level of doctrine or not.
There was never a question of whether or not the Jews, Muslims and Christians worshiped the one true God. This sort of got convoluted in there over the centuries. But the Church has never formally declared such a thing.
The term that was used was infidels. Which really means those outside the faith. We have to remember that this was not the same as heretic. Heretics were Catholics who embraced some error contrary to dogma.
As to assent, we have to assent to the Church’s understanding that the Muslims and the Jews worship the one true God and that we share a common sonship through Abraham. First of all, the line of Abraham cannot be denied. That’s de fide. Catholicism is grafted onto the line of Abraham. So is Islam. The line of Abraham does exist. It’s not a product of someone’s imagination. Therefore, the Jewish faith in the one true God cannot be denied. That faith flows forward through history and it reaches its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Here is where we come to forks in the road, for lack of a better image. Those who understand that the faith rooted in Abraham finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ and those who do not.
Those who do not, continue to worship the one true God. God did not change from the moment of the Incarnation forward. The God that Mary and Joseph worshiped before the annunciation is the same God that they worshiped after the annunciation. This is the God of Abraham.
Six centuries later come the Muslims who also worship the God of Abraham. Like the Jews, they do not see the fulfillment of the covenant in Jesus Christ. However, that does not change who God is.
In other words, God does not change, because the Trinity has been fully disclosed. He continues to be the same God.
It is not God who changed, but man’s understanding of God that changed. Through the incarnation, cross and resurrection, we come to understand that the God of Abraham is exists within a community of three persons. Abraham didn’t know this either.
The ignorance of the Jews and the Muslims is the same as that of the Patriarchs. One can say that they’re stuck. Their understanding of God has not progressed. Therefore, it’s an incomplete understanding, not an incomplete faith. Their faith in the one true God is very real and very correct. There is only one true God.
Where they and Christians part company is when it comes to the fulfillment of the covenant. They have a very difficult time wrapping their head around the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant. We’re not making matters any easier for the Holy Father when we start saying that the covenant was revoked. It was never revoked. It was fulfilled. That’s not the same thing. God does not revoke his word.
This is why the Church hopes for the salvation of the Jewish people and by extension, the Muslims. The covenant with Abraham has been fulfilled. When they come to the understanding of this great mystery, then the separation between us will come to an end.
What the Church discourages us to do is to antagonize them into conversion. But to anyone with common sense, it stands to reason that if you antagonize someone or badger them, you will only push them away, not draw them closer. If you’re hostile toward them, you really push them way back. Mistrust creates a very thick barrier to penetrate.
We have to assent to the Council’s statement. As Pope Benedict has said. It’s not up for grabs. Everything that the council said must be accepted as truth. This was his statement to the SSPX leadership. It’s pretty obvious that this cannot be a requirement for one group of Catholics, but not for all.
Pope Paul VI made it very clear that the pope had the right to command assent by virtue of his authority, not only on matters of faith and morals, but on any matter pertaining to Catholicism and Catholics have a moral duty to obey.
In this case, not to assent is not exactly heresy, though it can lead to heresy. It is defiance and a break with the primacy. If the primacy demands that we assent to this and we say that we will not, then we have raised the bar. The issue is no longer the Muslims and Jews. The issue now is the Catholic and the Pope. Will you or will you not submit to your pope?
)
Wow! I don’t get that very often here…actually, I usually get the opposite!!!
