J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t see what is so funny about it and I think it’s very rude of you to say so.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?
- Status
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Then I would expect to find it mentioned in the Catechism, but I couldn’t find it. Do you know where it is? thank you.
J
JReducation
Guest
It’s a fancy word that means to replace one thing with another that is superior or to fulfill one thing with another.
What the Catholic Church has taught is what I have posited above, that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant; therefore, the old covenant laws are no longer necessary, except for their historical grounding. In other words, the Jewish community keeps us grounded in our patriarchal anscestors. However, the Jewish laws no longer serve the purpose they once had. That part of the covenant is no longer needed and is abrogated. But the moral part of the covenant is still in place, because you can’t abrogate the 10 commandments. In addition, you cannot abrogate God’s covenant relationship with Israel. But the covenant relationship is extended to include everyone through the blood of Christ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yes, I understand the generic meaning of the word, but it can have a gradation of meaning when used in this context. I am concerned that some more radical uses of this term are clearly not what the Church teaches. I guess anyone using that term needs to let us know what exactly they mean by it. Thanks.It’s a fancy word that means to replace one thing with another that is superior or to fulfill one thing with another.
What the Catholic Church has taught is what I have posited above, that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant; therefore, the old covenant laws are no longer necessary, except for their historical grounding. In other words, the Jewish community keeps us grounded in our patriarchal anscestors. However, the Jewish laws no longer serve the purpose they once had. That part of the covenant is no longer needed and is abrogated. But the moral part of the covenant is still in place, because you can’t abrogate the 10 commandments. In addition, you cannot abrogate God’s covenant relationship with Israel. But the covenant relationship is extended to include everyone through the blood of Christ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
It has been misused by many people to promote their agenda of superiority. While the Church does not deny that “the fulness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church” she does not have illusions of grandeur and does not want Catholics to be arrogant or engrandize ourselves at the expense of people of other faiths.
Part of the problem is that even though the fullness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church, that does not mean that the individual Catholic is anywhere near the perfection of charity to which said truth leads. We have a human tendency to believe that because we have a great treasure, which we do, that we are also in some more noble moral state than our brothers and sisters of other faiths. That is not always the case. As human beings, we are sinners. As our holy Father Francis always said to our early brothers, we must remember that we are more sinful than any other man, despite that person’s sinfulness. He always encouraged us to look at both our own sin and the potential that we have to commit even greater sins than those whom we meet. It’s a very simple teaching, but it is helpful in treating others with kindness and recalling that we are sinners, not perfect. We must teach truth and also live according to the truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
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.
J
JReducation
Guest
Whoah, wait a minute. This is not what the Church believes or teaches. The Church believes and teaches that the Jews do worship God, as do the Muslims as well. The Church also believes that the fact that they do not know the Trinity, does not mean that they do not worship the Trinity, unbeknownst to them. Jesus said, “He who sees me, sees the one who sent me.” The same works the other way around. He who worships the God-head, worships the entire Trinity.
It is for this reason that during WW II St. Maximilian Kolbe lead the Jews who were hidden in his friary in the shabbat prayers, when they did not have a rabbi. The Franciscans in Assisi did the same in what was called the Assisi underground. The man whom today we venerate as Blessed John XXIII also led the Jewish Sabbath prayers for the children in his care during WW II. They did so without impunity. These actions were considered favorable during the study for their cuase of beatification. They were used as evidence of their great holiness and heroic virtue. They could have been killed for this, had the Nazis caught them.
Nostra Aetate is very clear on this and it is wrong to teach others something that is contrary to the teaching and wishes of the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
Why do you need “current teachings” as if past teachings have changed or no longer apply. The truth does not change or evolve nor does the Church’s understanding of it change or evolve as Vatican I infallibly teaches. And just because you can’t find current Church teachings does not mean they do not exist nor is it in any way necessary. Once the Church defines a dogma, it is defined and the matter is settled. The Church does not have to constantly republish her teachings over and over again so that everyone can continue to know she still teaches the same thing she always has. Has the Church published in detail all her previous dogmatic definitions from Trent?
This takes us back to our discussion on the current catechism that you and I had before. You seem to continue to think the the catechism contains all the teachings of the Church explained in full detail. In reality, it merely scratches the surface on so many different teachings and does not explain everything about every dogma nor does it republish everything the Church has previously published. Does that mean that previous infallible teachings have changed? Certainly not. But it does mean that the Church chooses what to teach at various times and in various languages. The Church has currently softened her language, but that does not mean that the particularly difficult things to accept that are a part of the faith no longer exist or that the Church has changed their understandings. I’m still waiting for you to answer to THIS POST on whether you believe that dogmas can change.
First of all infallibility was taught in the Scriptures.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Again, if you actually read the CE article, you will find it cites both Scripture and Tradition including early Church Tradition in support of infallibility. I would list all the stuff it says, but that would take up too much space. Again here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II Please read.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Where and how does the Church teach this today? Thanks.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Church teachings do change. Not all of them, of course, but many do. I’m asking for something more recent than a century ago, that’s all. Many things in the 1913 Encyclopedia have been changed due to the guidance of the Spirit, better scholarship, etc. (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls were not discovered until 40+ years later, which led to an improved understanding of Scripture).
As Pope John XXIII said at the opening of Vatican II:
No I don’t.
Dogmas don’t change. How we understand and interpret them may be phrased differently to better communicate the truth they witness to. See the quotation above from Pope John XXIII.
No it wasn’t.
I’ve read it a number of times. It’s out of date because Vatican II (along with all other Tradition since 1913) has added immeasurably to the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Vatican II continued the work of Vatican I which was unfortunately cut short unavoidably. Vatican II taught things relating to infallibility that Vatican I did not. You can’t turn to something from 1913 for a full understanding of what the Church teaches…here and now…regarding infallibility.
Why don’t you consult the most current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia? It was published in 2003. Compare what it says about infallibility to that of the 1913 edition that you seem to favor (I have). Please read. Thanks.
U
una_fides
Guest
JR,This position was argued and disgreed with by the Church itself. It was first argued at the Council of Florence. The Council wrote this. It was refuted by the bishops. It was not executed by the Church.
Later it was argued by biclical scholars and the conclusion of the Church has been that the observance of these rituals, even by Catholics who are converts from Judaism is good for both Jews and Catholics because they provide a historical continuity. In other words, they keep history alive. They help Christians see where we came from and where many of our own rituals came from.
The point that was preserved from the Council of Florence is that they have no salvific power. But the do not condemn either.
Read the following article by Cardinal Avery Dulles on this and other points. He gives a very good history of the question, how it developed and how it has been answered over the passing of time. Remember, this is not a doctrinal question. This is a question about rituals. Therefore, it becomes a biblical and disciplinary question.
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Do you have any Magisterial teachings that state that the ceremonies of the old law can be followed without the loss of eternal salvation or that it is permitted that people follow the Jewish rituals? And if so, does this carry the same weight as a General Council that uses words to define a teaching as part of the Catholic faith?
Bishops cannot “refute” teachings from a General Council and then change those teachings when they are dogmatic definitions. There was most certainly definitions given in Florence that you disagree with and therefore you are trying to write it off as non-infallible and then trying to say that its no longer binding as if the Church changed and abrogated all her previous teachings. These were not theological discussions. They were definitions given from the Church’s highest form of authority that state that this is what the Catholic faith is. Period. You have still yet to comment or answer to these two earlier posts that clearly state what the Church has taught on infallibility from Vatican I and II:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5700519&postcount=168
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5700558&postcount=170
If your understanding is plausible, then it will easily be reconciled with those teachings. If not, then you should consider rethinking your position.
*“Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility” (St. Augustine). *
U
una_fides
Guest
It is not a matter of discipline to say that a particular dogma is what the Catholic Church “believes, professes, and proclaims.” You are trying to re-define dogmas as “discipline.” Just as you cannot say that the belief in the two natures of Christ is a discipline, you cannot write off the dogmas that were taught from Florence pertaining to salvation and the Church and pertaining to the Jews.My take on this is that the Holy Fathers are not reading the Council of Florence the way that we may be reading it. They are reading each topic and each debate and selecting what is a matter of faith and separating that from matters of discipline and penalties. That actually makes sense. All three are important to the Church, but to different degrees and in different modalities.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
First, this link is misplaced as it is not the source for your bolded quotation. That aside, the statements you listed above are not saying that the Jews today are going to be saved. Notice it says “if they do not persist in their unbelief” then they can be saved. At the time of this Scriptural statement, the Jews believed in the God of Abraham. What is the unbelief referring to? The unbelief is that Jesus is Christ and God and is the fulfillment of their law. Once Jews embrace Jesus as the Christ, they can be grafted into the new covenant of the Church, which is represented as “the olive tree.”
U
una_fides
Guest
The Jews profess to worship the one true God, but they do not “truly” worship him, as the Catholic Church has consistently taught throughout the ages, as evidenced by the various papal pronouncements I provided. Otherwise, are you trying to say the Church changed her position or her teaching in this regard? I understand the Vatican II documents to be saying that they believe in the true God in their profession of one God, but at the same time–to be consistent with what the Church has always taught–they do not worship him truly. We must try to reconcile the Church’s teachings so that what she teaches now and what she has taught then complement each other and are both true. Otherwise, we defer to Tradition, since that is the nature of the Church. The Church does not create new dogmas. She is bound to explain them in the same sense as they have always been understood. If you believe that they truly worship God, then how do you understand those papal declarations I cited as saying?Whoah, wait a minute. This is not what the Church believes or teaches. The Church believes and teaches that the Jews do worship God, as do the Muslims as well. The Church also believes that the fact that they do not know the Trinity, does not mean that they do not worship the Trinity, unbeknownst to them. Jesus said, “He who sees me, sees the one who sent me.” The same works the other way around. He who worships the God-head, worships the entire Trinity.
It is for this reason that during WW II St. Maximilian Kolbe lead the Jews who were hidden in his friary in the shabbat prayers, when they did not have a rabbi. The Franciscans in Assisi did the same in what was called the Assisi underground. The man whom today we venerate as Blessed John XXIII also led the Jewish Sabbath prayers for the children in his care during WW II. They did so without impunity. These actions were considered favorable during the study for their cuase of beatification. They were used as evidence of their great holiness and heroic virtue. They could have been killed for this, had the Nazis caught them.
Nostra Aetate is very clear on this and it is wrong to teach others something that is contrary to the teaching and wishes of the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
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.
The current popes do not consider the statements made about the Jews and other faiths, to be dogmatic. Thus they have revised the statements according the dogmas that the Church does profess. We do believe that there is only one God. Anyone who believes in one God who is creator, father, judge and savior of all believes in the same God that we do, because these are the attributes that we give to God. We also understand that God is Trinitarian. The Muslims and Jews do not yet posess that understanding. But they do posess a clear understanding of the God-head. Thus the Church writes the following about the with confidence that this is true.
**3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. **
**4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)**
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.
In addition, the Church speaks of the attitude that every Catholic must hold regarding people of other faiths.
**5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8). **
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.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yep. That’s what I thought. Thanks.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.
The current popes do not consider the statements made about the Jews and other faiths, to be dogmatic. Thus they have revised the statements according the dogmas that the Church does profess. We do believe that there is only one God. Anyone who believes in one God who is creator, father, judge and savior of all believes in the same God that we do, because these are the attributes that we give to God. We also understand that God is Trinitarian. The Muslims and Jews do not yet posess that understanding. But they do posess a clear understanding of the God-head. Thus the Church writes the following about the with confidence that this is true.
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
**4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself**.(8)
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.
In addition, the Church speaks of the attitude that every Catholic must hold regarding people of other faiths.
**5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8). **
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.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
Wait so you are saying that God is still the God of the Jews who reject Christ? Are you saying that the Jewish people are today still God’s people? The Church referrs to its members as “the people of God.” The Jews are not a part of the Church unless they embrace Jesus as Christ and are baptized. The Jews can only be grafted back into the vine in once they acknowledge Christ as their savior. They are beloved for the sake of their fathers, but they are not in the New Covenant until they cease in their unbelief pertaining to Christ.
In addition, we actually do not follow the moral law of the old covenant. We only follow the moral code of the new law and the New Covenant in Christ, which the old law and the 10 commandments foreshadowed and could be compared to a seed form of what actually grew into fulfillment. I don’t know if you realize this, but we do not actually follow the 10 commandments as the Jews followed them. We do not keep the sabbath nor are we bound to. The Church has changed this commandment, and in the New Covenant instead we keep holy the Lord’s day as we celebrate his resurrection on Sunday, which is not the Jewish sabbath.
St. Thomas Aquinas has a section on this topic in his Summa. newadvent.org/summa/2107.htm
His sections in the Summa on these points are very helpful, and I suggest them for further reading as they will greatly aid in understanding the Church’s teachings on these matters, which again to point out have not changed nor can they change. He explains that the old law was imperfect, whereas the New Law is perfect. The old brings death, and the New brings life through Christ Jesus, as St. Paul also clearly teaches in Scripture.
“Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law of shadow or of figure.”
"Wherefore from the very fact that the ceremonial precepts were fulfilled when those things were accomplished which they foreshadowed, it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for if they were to be observed, this would mean that something is still to be accomplished and is not yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a future gift holds no longer when it has been fulfilled by the presentation of the gift. In this way the legal ceremonies are abolished by being fulfilled. "
“The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law are not mentioned in Matthew 5 is because, as stated above (ad 1), their observance was abolished by their fulfilment.”
From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm
J
JReducation
Guest
I think the issue here is the word “truly”. The Church uses this term in a different manner. It does not mean that they (Jews, Muslims and others) do not worship the true God. What it means is that they do not have the fullness of truth about God. If we stop for a moment and look at our doctrines and dogmas on the Eucharist, this is where the word is applicable. What is the most perfect worship of God? The Eucharist. They do not have this. Therefore, their worship of God is lacking, but not because they don’t “truly” worship God, but because they do not have the perfect form of worship. But they do, nonetheless, worship the true God, with what they have.
This is where Popes since John XXIII have carefully examined the writings of previoius popes, doctors and councils, and arrived at the conclusion that they have the authority to restate the teaching regarding the Jews, Muslims and other people of faith, because the previous statements were not intended as dogmas, but as statements of ecclesiology and statements to protect Catholics at a time when their faith was threatened by this other groups. The situation has changed. The doctrine remains untouched, “the fulness of truth subsists within the Catholic Church”. That is the doctrine. The rest is ecclesiology.
I hope this makes things a little clearer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I would say of course. Despite the fact that Jews do not recognize Christ, they still worship the one God revealed to them (e.g. through what Christians call the Old Testament).
Are you saying the Jews worship a God different from the God revealed to Abraham, Moses, etc.?
Have you read what Vatican II taught in Nostra Aetate?
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
U
una_fides
Guest
Like what for example? Can you give me an example of the Church before Vatican II changing any of her prior defined teachings?
So are you saying that the quotes from Scripture have changed or that the quotes from the early Church fathers have changed? They are the same Scriptures and the same fathers. Just because some modernist theologians today have written things to try to explain things differently than how they’ve been understood before, does not mean that the content itself changes. If you read the article, you would see that it cites Scripture and the Church fathers in defense of infallibility as being always understood though not clearly formulated until later. 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.
Keep this in mind when you read the various papal declarations I’ve cited. The dogmas they profess do not change and the understanding does not change, as Vatican I clearly states. They can be explained in ways to better communicate them, but not to change the meaning as it has always been understood.
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. So I do hope you don’t think that. The Scripture above I provided demonstrates infallibility. That is what is meant by being both bound on earth and bound in heaven. If something is true on earth then it is thereby true in heaven.
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? I’m sure you can find modern sources that will contradict or try to limit infallibility to mean less than what was defined in both Vatican I and II, but that does not change what the two councils taught. Again, please show me how Vatican II teachings are in any way in conflict with the CE article I cited.
- Status