New ‘Declaration of Truths’ Affirms Key Church Teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only people who have an exagerated sense of infallibility is +Burke and the others who signed it. Sadly, though, it is themselves they see as infailable.
All these men owe Francis their respect and obedience. They are showing the world the have neither with this document.
 
Malcolm said:
What is this a court trial?

I don’t have the specific references at my fingertips as to which Mexican journalist the Pope said this or that to but suffice it to say I consider the hand writing is now on the wall for any reasonably informed Catholic to see - unless of course they wilfully refuse to.
Click to expand...
OK, I was hoping to have a serious conversation about your concerns, but it appears you are not willing to do more than impugn the Church leadership without giving your basis for doing so. That is your choice, but I don’t see how anyone can claim to he “defending the faith” if they are unwilling to say what the faith is, or how and why it need be defended.
 
Again, the letter these bishops signed states nothing but basic Catholic doctrine. Which bishops have a responsible to teach.
 
In my experience, those who hold another clerics opinion above that of the Holy Father will not engage in any serious discussion.
They use words like “ambiguous” and “heterodox”, throw around accusations of heresy and lament for the days of JPII & BXVI. There is a lot of noise, but no substance. They are just as dangerous to the Church as clerics who set themselves up as an “alternate Magisterium”.
 
That has been proven false with the statememt on Jews and salvation in this document. They are NOT espousing Church teaching.
 
Last edited:
What this document says about the Jews is perennial Catholic teaching. Salvation is through Christ alone; there are no alternate paths for Jews or anyone else.
 
That is because it is not a theological dispute - it is a power struggle and a political dispute. It is about control. One easy way to see this is that, as you point out, they pine for JPII and BXVI, but most (nearly all) of the supposedly erroneous teachings they point to were in place during those papacies. It was JPII who first directly stated that Nostra Aetate means that Jews may be saved under the Old Covenant. BXVI was a strong supporter of the developments in EENS and the death penalty. But now those teachings are suddenly unacceptable.
 
Exactly, and men like +AB Schneider, +Cardinal Burke, et al, just sit by and stoke the flames of division and suspicion.
It is shameful.
 
Last edited:
Well, that is because you and others keep diverting to what they say without actually showing the words and their context.

If you could actually cite what you find problematic, a real discussion could be had.
 
When has Burke or anyone mentioned put their own word above the Pope’s? You’re buying into the false narrative that Burke and others are like an anti-church! When did he ever assert his own authority over the Pope’s? Also, Jews CAN be saved under he OC, but that does not mean they will!
 
I have loved all of the Popes of my lifetime. I will likely love all the Popes that come after Francis.

I am a layman. I learn from Popes. They write or say something and I think “what should I be learning here?” “What is God trying to tell me through the Holy Father?”
 
It is not a “false” narrative, it is that some posters do not even know “the narrative” , much less events nor Church documents.
The big problem is that some people do not read nor want to read and do research into documents. Sometimes any document on any topic.
We have been through this before.
More than once.
For new posters, we have our parish priests, we have our own Bishop, Conference of Bishops…that is how it goes.
We have our family and daily lives, maybe college or school for some here…
Let us live our simple lives and leave discussions sometimes way above our pay grades and pray for all.
 
Last edited:
It does not at all deny that they have the possibility of being saved. But it does declare that Christ in necessary in all salvation!
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
It does not at all deny that they have the possibility of being saved. But it does declare that Christ in necessary in all salvation!
Click to expand...
It absolutely denies that Jews may be saved under the Old Covenant, and asserts they must convert to Christianity. Here are the exact words:
  1. After the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ, no one may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses alone without faith in Christ as true God and the only Savior of humankind (see Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16).
The Church teaches the opposite. Some of the conflicts in the “declaration” are vague - deliberately so, in my opinion. This one is very direct.
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
It does not at all deny that they have the possibility of being saved. But it does declare that Christ in necessary in all salvation!
Click to expand...
The reason that it was reformulated was that many people with either agenda’s or poor theological expertise, were taking the wording to say that the Old Covenant was revoked and the Jews could never be saved. The reformulation makes the actual meaning really clear. Why on earth would Burke want to fiddle with that?
 
TMC said:
The Church teaches the opposite. Some of the conflicts in the “declaration” are vague - deliberately so, in my opinion. This one is very direct.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to ask Burke what he really believes. Is he saying that the Church is actually incorrect and that the Old Covenant is revoked and Jews can’t actually be saved unless they convert?
 
KMG said:
Again, the letter these bishops signed states nothing but basic Catholic doctrine. Which bishops have a responsible to teach.
Click to expand...
As far as I’m concerned you and the authors are both right about what “basic Catholic doctrine” is regarding the topics they address. It just happens to contradict several things the Pope has frequently and flippantly said publicly. That’s the elephant in the room.
 
Even if this does mean what your saying, it provides sound biblical proof. If Jews do not need Christ, then his sacrifice is worthless. In order for his grace to mean something, a person must accept his will willingly.
 
Last edited:
I actually feel it does need to be reformulated. People were thinking that Jews are not in need of Christ for salvation, and their rejection of him was thought as perfectly reasonable and valid.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top