Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?

[JReducation]

Ok, you guys just went all over the place and lost me. I thought we were discussing the Church’s current teaching on the Jews? Or did that topic get exhausted? It’s fine by me, if it got exhausted. I just go lost here, trying to follow the above post.

Not to worry, I get lost on my way to the kitchen of my own home.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Like what for example? Can you give me an example of the Church before Vatican II changing any of her prior defined teachings?

Eating meat on Fridays is a mortal sin.

So are you saying that the quotes from Scripture have changed or that the quotes from the early Church fathers have changed?

No

Also notice in your quote from JP2 that he does not say that the Church is changing her old teachings. He says that we continue to follow the same faith and the same teachings. Don’t try to spin his words, as he was only saying that the teachings should be said in ways to be better understood by today’s readers, not to be changed into something different.

I never said they should be changed into something different. What I said was exactly the opposite.

First, to say that the Church did not always possess infallibility or that this teaching was not part of the sacred deposit originally entrusted to the Church is heresy.

I never said that.

The Scripture above I provided demonstrates infallibility.

No. THe Scripture you cite supports infallibility, and is coherent with the teaching of it, but it does not demonstrate infallibility. Sorry.

Can you tell me what did Vatican II change regarding infallibility or what did it teach that in any way contradicts what the CE states?

That’s easy. Read Lumen Gentium, and compare it to Vatican I (piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm)

If you don’t see the obvious differences let me know and I will provide a more explicit detailed explication.

Thanks

 

[una_fides]

The Church says that Muslims and Jews do adore the same God that we do. She applies an ecclesiology that is more consistent with this belief than in the past. This does not mean that dogma has changed. The reason why the Church can modify this position from previous ones, is becaus they were not dogmas. The dogmas that came out of the Council of Florence had to do with the nature of God, purgatory, the primacy of Peter, the words of consecration and the unity of the Church.
…]
This is from Nostra Aetate, one of the most updated commentaries on ecclesiology. Nostra Aetate is not trying to undo dogma, but trying to make is easier for us to understand and to apply it correctly, by avoiding the pitfalls into which many Catholics fell through the centuries, pitfalls that led to conflicts and even hatred, because of an incorrect interpretation of what the Church believes.

Did the following popes also share this “incorrect interpretation of what the Church believes” (keeping in mind that what they teach as binding on the Church is the teaching of the Church)?

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV: (Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration)
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom *and unity *of the Catholic Church. ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Pope Boniface VIII. Unam Sanctam – 18 November 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

From Pope Leo XII’s encyclical Ubi Primum 1823-1829:
14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the 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.
[21] He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches.[22] In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”[23] papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

The following teachings were solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX as heresies in the Syllabus of Errors: III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
HERESY #15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
HERESY #16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832:
We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is 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.” Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: "There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved."papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16summo.htm

 

[una_fides]

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832:
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”(Ephesians 4,5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” (Luke 11,23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” (Symbol of Saint Athanasius) (…) This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say (Epistle 166)” ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm

 

[una_fides]

The Church does not deny what has been said by previous dogmas. What she has done is to state that those dogmas also include the Jews, Muslims, Orthodox, and Protestants, because those dogmas speak about those who are part of the Church. And the Church believes that in some mysterious way, unknown to us, these people are connected to her, even if it is in a less than pefect relationship. The objective is for us to work toward a perfect relationship or perfect communion. Not only must we work toward a perfect communion with other faiths, but each of us must work toward a communion with the Church as individuals. We cannot assume that because we are Catholic, we are in a better relationship with the Church or God than others. Our baptism, does not guarrantee our sinlessness.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943:
22. 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. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

 

[JReducation]

Did the following popes also share this “incorrect interpretation of what the Church believes” (keeping in mind that what they teach as binding on the Church is the teaching of the Church)?

Sorry, had to delete the missing pieces, because of too many characters.

If you read Nostra Aetatis and Ut Unum Sint, you will find that none of these statements are denied. What the Church understands is that these people are connected to her in some ways. Therefore, they are not totally disconnected from the saving grace that comes from Christ through her. The teaching remains in tact. Salvation comes through the Church.

What is restated is that the people of whom these previous writings spoke are really in some way connected to the Church and therefore are not deprived of salvation. The two documents proceed to explain how they are connected to the Church. Both documents conclude on the same note, their relationship or communion with the Church is imperfect, but not totally absent. There are certain truths that the Catholic Church professes are found in these other faiths. It is through these truths, that Christ will save them.

That does not deny the need to bring them into a full communion with the Church. It is simply an acknowledgement that they are not alone or abandoned by God or totally alienated from truth, but truth is found there too.

It’s very long to explain in an internet post. And I can’t do it justice as Nostra Aetate and Ut Unum Sint can do. I would recommend that you go there for a better clarification. Just keep in mind, that it was not the mind of Vatican II to undo or deny what came before, but to explore deeper into the mystery of the Church. As it did, it found that the Jews, Muslims, Orthodox and Protestants are not totally deprived of Truth. Therefore, where there is truth, there is the Church, because all truth subsists in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

Sorry, had to delete the missing pieces, because of too many characters.

If you read Nostra Aetatis and Ut Unum Sint, you will find that none of these statements are denied. What the Church understands is that these people are connected to her in some ways. Therefore, they are not totally disconnected from the saving grace that comes from Christ through her. The teaching remains in tact. Salvation comes through the Church.

What is restated is that the people of whom these previous writings spoke are really in some way connected to the Church and therefore are not deprived of salvation. The two documents proceed to explain how they are connected to the Church. Both documents conclude on the same note, their relationship or communion with the Church is imperfect, but not totally absent. There are certain truths that the Catholic Church professes are found in these other faiths. It is through these truths, that Christ will save them.

That does not deny the need to bring them into a full communion with the Church. It is simply an acknowledgement that they are not alone or abandoned by God or totally alienated from truth, but truth is found there too.

It’s very long to explain in an internet post. And I can’t do it justice as Nostra Aetate and Ut Unum Sint can do. I would recommend that you go there for a better clarification. Just keep in mind, that it was not the mind of Vatican II to undo or deny what came before, but to explore deeper into the mystery of the Church. As it did, it found that the Jews, Muslims, Orthodox and Protestants are not totally deprived of Truth. Therefore, where there is truth, there is the Church, because all truth subsists in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

These false religions do have some elements of truth, but they are also mingled with deadly errors that cannot be glazed over, sugar coated, or ignored. I’ve heard someone give this example. Let’s say you are sick with a deadly illness, and I have a bottle full of pills that will cure you. You on the other hand are holding a bottle that contains half of the good pills mixed with half of deadly poison. It would be my duty to not only point out that my bottle has the fullness of the good pills but also warn you that if you persist in taking the pills from that bottle, the medicine will likely kill you.

A great example of a deadly poison in a false religion is sola fide. I am actually a convert from protestantism, and many protestants believe that once you are saved you are always saved and no matter what bad sins you commit you will still go to heaven. If one follows this teaching, he will not know the necessity of making an act of perfect contrition in order to be forgiven his sins. He will likely not see a necessity to pray any prayer of contrition before death for his past sins since he is on his way to glory and those sins are already “covered in the blood.” They have a false faith that their faith will bring about forgiveness of sins, while God’s absolute and immutable truth is that contrition is absolutely necessary. This is one of many examples that can be given and doesn’t even begin to delve into the actual sinful practices themselves built into many false religions such as fornication and other pagan rituals.

I ask that you not try to explain your understanding of those modern documents, but instead try to explain what those papal declarations I posted mean and what the popes meant by what they declared to be the faith of the Church. If we are bound to understand the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the same sense (in eodem sensu) as the Church has always previously held, then these authoritative explanations of the dogma throughout the centuries will explain how the Church has understood this teaching, so that we can then understand it in this same sense as has always been held to which Vatican I defined we must definitively hold to be true and can never abandon under the pretext of some deeper understanding.

 

[JReducation]

These false religions do have some elements of truth, but they are also mingled with deadly errors that cannot be glazed over, sugar coated, or ignored. I’ve heard someone give this example. Let’s say you are sick with a deadly illness, and I have a bottle full of pills that will cure you. You on the other hand are holding a bottle that contains half of the good pills mixed with half of deadly poison. It would be my duty to not only point out that my bottle has the fullness of the good pills but also warn you that if you persist in taking the pills from that bottle, the medicine will likely kill you.

A great example of a deadly poison in a false religion is sola fide. I am actually a convert from protestantism, and many protestants believe that once you are saved you are always saved and no matter what bad sins you commit you will still go to heaven. If one follows this teaching, he will not know the necessity of making an act of perfect contrition in order to be forgiven his sins. He will likely not see a necessity to pray any prayer of contrition before death for his past sins since he is on his way to glory and those sins are already “covered in the blood.” They have a false faith that their faith will bring about forgiveness of sins, while God’s absolute and immutable truth is that contrition is absolutely necessary. This is one of many examples that can be given and doesn’t even begin to delve into the actual sinful practices themselves built into many false religions such as fornication and other pagan rituals.

I ask that you not try to explain your understanding of those modern documents, but instead try to explain what those papal declarations I posted mean and what the popes meant by what they declared to be the faith of the Church. If we are bound to understand the dogma of no salvation outside the Church in the same sense (in eodem sensu) as the Church has always previously held, then these authoritative explanations of the dogma throughout the centuries will explain how the Church has understood this teaching, so that we can then understand it in this same sense as has always been held to which Vatican I defined we must definitively hold to be true and can never abandon under the pretext of some deeper understanding.

So are you proposing the the understanding of these dogmas and doctrines stated in Nostra Aetate, the other documents of Vatican II, the writings of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI on this issue are of no value in helping you understand the past?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chosen_people]

No I do not believe that the Jews pray to the Trinity in their own way. He who comes to God must believe that He is, and the Jews do not believe that Jesus is God nor do they believe in a distinct person of God’s Holy Spirit. The Jews do not truly worship God, as the Church has constantly taught throughout her history:

Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 590-604), Moralia, Book XIV, 5.
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 lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book14.html

The Athanasian Creed – One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy. This Creed included in Ecumenical & Infallible Council of Florence: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. … Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. … This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Pope Pius XII, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:
“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.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

The Jews may believe in the God of Abraham, whom we know to be the Father, the first person of the blessed Trinity, but they do not know or pray to the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Well apparently to your way of thinking, God who made an eternal covenant with the Jewish people at some point stopped being God and therefore we do not “truly pray to God”- not only that - the reason God made the eternal covenant was our acceptance of God and the rejection of the man- gods and human sacrifice and bowing down to statues. Now don’t you find it ironic that our eternal covenant with God - Tanach and Torah in its fullest sense- is the very reason the Jews could never accept the classic pagan mythological god-man story? - a story which appears time after time under different names in ancient Egyptian, ancient Persian, ancient Greek and ancient Roman culture. You ask do Jews pray to God if they do not accept the additional man-god concept? From our perspective the question is, can you still be praying to God if you also believe this antithetical man-god concept? However, while you regard God’s chosen people in terms of “heresy” and we have been persecuted for our refusal to break our eternal covenant with God - We teach the equality of all men and that it is easier for the gentile than for the Jew to get into the world to come. There is only one God and He is the God of all.

 

[una_fides]

So are you proposing the the understanding of these dogmas and doctrines stated in Nostra Aetate, the other documents of Vatican II, the writings of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI on this issue are of no value in helping you understand the past?

I did not say they were of *no *value nor was such implied by my previous comments. You do not, however, need their writings in order to understand what the Church has always taught. The older documents themselves can interpret themselves. We have a plethora of dogmatic declarations by the Church, and if you read them, you can gain understanding of what the Church teaches and of the sense in which she understands these teachings.

If the Church did not change her teachings on the dogma of no salvation outside the Church, as you earlier stated, then tell me how your understanding of what the Church now teaches can be reconciled with what she explicitly and specifically taught previously throughout the centuries.

Do you want to know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on this issue? She has already told us from her highest extraordinary Magisterium in a General Council.
“The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV: (Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

What do you make of this specific dogmatic declaration? How do you interpret or understand it so that it is still understood in the same sense that the Church then understood it?

What I would like to see is how someone can try to wiggle around the very clear wording and try to reinterpret what the Church has always taught on this matter. These declarations are not up for reinterpretation because the Church has already settled the matter by saying they must be understood in the same sense as before. This sense cannot change. I do ask that you go through the various papal declarations and carefully read them and try to understand what they say and see if your modern understanding of NSOC fits with their teachings. If not, then you may need to reevaluate your understanding of these modern and often-times vague writings that are mostly overly positive and optimistic and present the faith in a manner that is as easy to accept and not offend the sensibilities as possible. If we want to know the truth of what the Church has always taught and understood throughout her history, our best and safest goal is to not start with modern vague writings, but instead to first study what she has always taught and understand that so that we can then correctly understand and reconcile what is being said today.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Since there are too many posts to respond to on this thread I just want to say the following:

“Hence, that meaning of the Sacred Dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the Dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

una fides, you are on the right track

That is all.

 

[justin_sp]

Amen to that!! I also agree that you are on the right track.The modern day encyclicals by the popes are so so vague that it is hard to decipher what they are trying to convey.

 

[justin_sp]

Sorry, had to delete the missing pieces, because of too many characters.

If you read Nostra Aetatis and Ut Unum Sint, you will find that none of these statements are denied. What the Church understands is that these people are connected to her in some ways. Therefore, they are not totally disconnected from the saving grace that comes from Christ through her. The teaching remains in tact. Salvation comes through the Church.

What is restated is that the people of whom these previous writings spoke are really in some way connected to the Church and therefore are not deprived of salvation. The two documents proceed to explain how they are connected to the Church. Both documents conclude on the same note, their relationship or communion with the Church is imperfect, but not totally absent. There are certain truths that the Catholic Church professes are found in these other faiths. It is through these truths, that Christ will save them.

That does not deny the need to bring them into a full communion with the Church. It is simply an acknowledgement that they are not alone or abandoned by God or totally alienated from truth, but truth is found there too.

It’s very long to explain in an internet post. And I can’t do it justice as Nostra Aetate and Ut Unum Sint can do. I would recommend that you go there for a better clarification. Just keep in mind, that it was not the mind of Vatican II to undo or deny what came before, but to explore deeper into the mystery of the Church. As it did, it found that the Jews, Muslims, Orthodox and Protestants are not totally deprived of Truth. Therefore, where there is truth, there is the Church, because all truth subsists in the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So are you saying the members of false religions are somehow members of the Church,though in a incomplete way?

 

[JReducation]

So are you saying the members of false religions are somehow members of the Church,though in a incomplete way?

I didn’t say that, the Church said it. And Pope John Paul II repeated it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

I didn’t say that, the Church said it. And Pope John Paul II repeated it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Can you show me where jp2 or the Church has ever called them “members.” Again I fear you are reading something into the vague wording of these documents that clearly contradicts what the Church has taught throughout her history. To say that these groups are “related” to the Church in various ways is not close to saying that they are members of the Church. Please read what popes have said is necessary to be a member of the Church as I’ve posted above. I’m still waiting to see how you try to interpret those teachings so that they somehow do not contradict what you are claiming the vague wording by these modern popes mean.

 

[JReducation]

Can you show me where jp2 or the Church has ever called them “members.” Again I fear you are reading something into the vague wording of these documents that clearly contradicts what the Church has taught throughout her history. To say that these groups are “related” to the Church in various ways is not close to saying that they are members of the Church. Please read what popes have said is necessary to be a member of the Church as I’ve posted above. I’m still waiting to see how you try to interpret those teachings so that they somehow do not contradict what you are claiming the vague wording by these modern popes mean.

In post 234 I gave you some citations from Nostra Aetate and I have referred you to read Ut Unum Sint on several of my posts. What more can I tell you to read? I don’t find them ambiguous at all. Maybe it’s because of many years in the theological seminaries, but I think you don’t need a theological degree to understand these documents. They are very clear in what they want Catholics to believe and how they want Catholics to act toward people of other faiths. I don’t really see what is the difficulty in reading these documents to clearly understand how the Church of today applies the teachings that were handed down to us from the past. We’re not talking about changing dogma here. We’re talking about changing how we see people.

The dogma remains in place, “No salvation outside the Church.” How we understand the Church is not a dogma. That is ecclesiology. Ecclesiology does evolves. We come to a deeper understanding of the meaning and mission of the Church. That’s all that has been developed in the last 50 or so years, the Church’s understanding of herself and her mission. Not the dogma.

The Church sees herself as present in other faiths, even though her presence is imperfect. This is not a change in dogma. It is a evolution in her vision of herself… The Church has a right to explain her vision of herself and to see herself more deeply with each passing century as she contemplates her own mystery. That is why you must read these documents. Don’t go looking for the old teachigns. These are not going to be repeated. Go into them looking for how the Church sees herself present in the world and how she sees herself related to people of other faiths. That’s what these documetns try to explain. The question was, “Is the Church present or not in other faiths?” The answer of the Council Fathers and of Pope John Paul II was, “Affirmative.” They produced these documents to explain how so.

That is why the Church demands that we no longer refer to the Orthdox as schismatics, but as Sister Churches. The Catholic Church is present in the Orthodox Church through the sacraments. She is present in the Jewish faith through the patriarchs and through Jesus’ own Judaism. She is present in Islam through their faith in Abraham and their faith in Mary. The Church of today highlights these points and says that where there is a truth spoken, she is present in that truth. Even if nothing else that is said is truth. The Church is present in that one single truth that was uttered and believed. Through that truth she extends salvation to others. So that salvation continues to come through the Church and no other source.

But you will not get this information from the old documents, because they were not statements about ecclesiology. They were statements about dogmas. These newer documetns are statements about ecclesiology. You have to read both.

When I was in Rome, as a student, we had to read both and understand that one set out to explain the dogma of no salvation outside the Church and the other sets out to explain that through God’s mercy, the Church is present everywhere in some less perfect way, but sill present. Our mission is to make her presence complete.

Read the documetns in the light of where the Church is, not to answer the question of salvation outside the Church. That has already been answered.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JoeBrown]

If the Church did not change her teachings on the dogma of no salvation outside the Church, as you earlier stated, then tell me how your understanding of what the Church now teaches can be reconciled with what she explicitly and specifically taught previously throughout the centuries.

Obviously, the Catholic Church has changed the teaching on this. As you have already pointed out, previously the teaching was that a Jew could not be saved, but now the teaching is that a Jew can be saved.

 

[JoeBrown]

Can you give me an example of the Church before Vatican II changing any of her prior defined teachings? .

Most of the changes in teachings have come after VII. But there are a few teachings which were changed before VII. One example is the teaching on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (which was taught before ~700 AD) or whether the Holy Spriti proceeds from the Father and from the Son (which was taught only in the West after ~700 AD).

 

[SemperFidelis]

In post 234 I gave you some citations from Nostra Aetate and I have referred you to read Ut Unum Sint on several of my posts.

Can you point out where the above explicitly say that Jews are members of the Church?

The dogma remains in place, “No salvation outside the Church.” How we understand the Church is not a dogma. That is ecclesiology. Ecclesiology does evolves. We come to a deeper understanding of the meaning and mission of the Church. That’s all that has been developed in the last 50 or so years, the Church’s understanding of herself and her mission. Not the dogma.

The above proposition has been condemned several times by the Ordinary and Infallible Magisterium.

The Church sees herself as present in other faiths, even though her presence is imperfect. This is not a change in dogma. It is a evolution in her vision of herself… The Church has a right to explain her vision of herself and to see herself more deeply with each passing century as she contemplates her own mystery.

Same as above. Condemned.

Don’t go looking for the old teachigns. These are not going to be repeated.

Umm, what? The Church hierarchy has failed in its mission then. This is exactly why the SSPX disobeys. Because a hierarchy that fails to repeat the Sacred Dogmata or attempts to imbue Sacred Dogmata with liberalism and modernism, or even attempts to change Sacred Dogmata (which is physically impossible) should be disobeyed (and this includes an attempted ecclesiology which contradicts Dogma). And that is the unanimous teaching of Saints, Popes, and theologians.

That is why the Church demands that we no longer refer to the Orthdox as schismatics, but as Sister Churches.

The Church has not demanded such a thing.

 

[una_fides]

Most of the changes in teachings have come after VII. But there are a few teachings which were changed before VII. One example is the teaching on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (which was taught before ~700 AD) or whether the Holy Spriti proceeds from the Father and from the Son (which was taught only in the West after ~700 AD).

This is absolutely NOT a change in teaching. Now if the Church were to have previously taught that the Spirit ONLY proceeds from the Father and NOT the Son then that would have been a change in teaching. But that was not the case. The Church drew from the sacred deposit of divine revelation to define that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To say that the Church did not receive this teaching from sacred Tradition but instead changed her already defined teaching to mean something different is tantamount to heresy.

Any other examples? Isn’t it interesting that for 2000 years the Church teaches the same constant dogmas and only develops her Tradition in the same sense without change? In fact in Vatican I she infallibly defined that her dogmas cannot change or even be understood in a different sense than as always before. But now you are claiming this same Church is falling into the heresy of applying different understandings to defined dogmas for which then her current leaders would be guilty of heresy and would be anathema. Do you see the problem? Either you interpret her new vague teachings in the same sense as the previous ones or you are left with a Church run by heretics. That situation occurred before during the Arian crisis in which the majority of the bishops in the world were heretics. I on the other hand do not think that current popes are changing the past teachings. I just think their writings are often vague and consequently can be misleading such as the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer.