New ‘Declaration of Truths’ Affirms Key Church Teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CapitalistCatholic said:
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.
Click to expand...
How could the people think that of the reformulation? It is very clear about what unfaithfulness and infidelity caused Christs death but explains that in the context of Gods love and mercy for the Chosen people.

22. Like the Church itself even in our own day, Israel bears the treasure of its election in fragile vessels. The relationship of Israel with its Lord is the story of its faithfulness and its unfaithfulness. In order to fulfil his work of salvation despite the smallness and weakness of the instruments he chose, God manifested his mercy and the graciousness of his gifts, as well as his faithfulness to his promises which no human infidelity can nullify (cf. Rom 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13). At every step of his people along the way God set apart at least a ‘small number’ (cf. Deut 4:27), a ‘remnant’ (cf. Is 1:9; Zeph 3:12; cf. also Is 6:13; 17:5-6), a handful of the faithful who ‘have not bowed the knee to Baal’ (cf. 1 Kings 19:18). Through this remnant, God realized his plan of salvation. Constantly the object of his election and love remained the chosen people as through them – as the ultimate goal – the whole of humanity is gathered together and led to him.

“THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE” (Rom 11:29)
A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CATHOLIC–JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF “NOSTRA AETATE” (NO.4)

Do you believe that Jews can be saved by God without actually converting or not?
 
There is a possibility that they can be saved, but their salvation is not certain.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it can. Why does that matter?
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
There is a possibility that they can be saved, but their salvation is not certain.
Click to expand...
You are disagreeing with Burkes statement then. He writes:
  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).
 
You are clearly misinterpreting Burke’s statement. Like I said before. Mountain out of a mole hill.
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
You are clearly misinterpreting Burke’s statement. Like I said before. Mountain out of a mole hill.
Click to expand...
Burkes statement excludes obedient, faithful Jews from salvation if they don’t convert. It’s not open to misinterpretation. He said it in black and white and that is not the position of the Church.
 
So you’re saying we don’t need to convert Jews and they should just stay where they are, which outside the fullness of grace within the Church?
 
No, we don’t “need” to convert the Jews.
If they want to come, we welcome them with open arms. If they don’t, we respect that they were/are still God’s children.
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
So you’re saying we don’t need to convert Jews and they should just stay where they are, which outside the fullness of grace within the Church?
Click to expand...
Here is what the Church teaches (from the document linked to above)

40. It is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.
 
Last edited:
So essentially, we don’t care. We don’t care that the Jews reject their promised Messiah. We don’t care about our fullness of grace. We don’t care about the salvation of souls. Awesome. I’m seriously thinking about becoming Orthodox now.
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
So essentially, we don’t care. We don’t care that the Jews reject their promised Messiah. We don’t care about our fullness of grace. We don’t care about the salvation of souls. Awesome. I’m seriously thinking about becoming Orthodox now.
Click to expand...
No, it’s the opposite. The work of the Church recognises the meaning of the faithful Jews that exist still open to the “Christ event”. These are people that whatever causes their unbelief that Jesus is the Messiah they remain faithfully open, practicing the Will of God as per the Torah. They are different to other people who simply reject Jesus. The faithful Jews don’t reject the Messiah. They are completely open to Gods promise. That is a unique position and one that makes them our brothers in the same faith. Without the Jews today carrying on the beliefs and traditions of the Chosen people, we would have lost an irreplaceable resource in theology that all our understanding comes from in the first place. So the Church recognises that fact in the light of 2000 years of Christian history. We are all people of Gods promised Messiah. Therefore our witness should not be in the form of specific evangelising, but in the witness of our Christian lives.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I will take this in mind, though I’m still not sure how the good Cardinal contradicts this teaching.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews.
Click to expand...
I’m not disputing it, but it seems a rather remarkable statement, considering that Jesus himself mostly directed his evangelical mission specifically to the Jewish people. Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jews, and most of his followers were Jews. The Church’s origins are Jewish.
 
TMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the Church is teaching the opposite of scripture???

No Jew is saved under the Old Covenant. It’s probably more accurate to state that if an individual Jew is saved without explicit acceptance and faith in Jesus Christ, then he is saved despite the Old Covenant - not because he is under the Old Covenant. The Jews are (or were) in a privileged position since the Old Covenant was to point them to the Messiah and Savior. And yes, according to St. Paul, they are to accept Jesus as the Christ, believe in him, and be grafted back into the olive tree from which they have been cut off through unbelief. But certainly, God could save a remnant who through invincible ignorance do not accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
Here is what the Church teaches (from the document linked to above)

40. It is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding this here. I take this to mean that the Church does not specifically target Jews. Certainly, the Church wants Jews to recognize their Messiah as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 through whom their own prophets testified. For crying out loud, if this means what you appear to say it means, the early Christian Church would have never got off the ground (especially since the first several thousand Christians were Jewish), St. Paul would have been wasting his time going to synagogues in all the towns where he was planting churches, the early Church would have destroyed much of what St. Paul wrote, etc.
 
Really a pity re: the Jews that Saints Paul, Stephen the Protomartyr, and so many others didn’t have the benefit of knowing that everything they did was unnecessary.
 
“There is also a lot of confusion at the moment in the Catholic Church on important points that affect the indissolubility of marriage, the relationship of the Conjugal Alliance with the Alliance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the question of the indissolubility of marriage, the question of homosexual practices, the question of the celibacy of priests in the Latin Church and so many other subjects: a great confusion. And it’s going in every direction. And we must be grateful when on some of these points our current Pope, Pope Francis, speaks clearly. And we can also continue to be inspired by the very clear and also very merciful teaching given to us by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and by St. John Paul II. We will have to fight with firmness, kindness, listening and mercy, but there will be battles to be fought.” - Archbishop Andre-Joseph Léonard

He sums it up quite nicely.
 
Malcolm said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the core of it, isn’t it? The question is not whether you or I or Cardinal Burke have a right to disagree with the Church’s teachings. Of course we do. The question is whether you or I or Cardinal Burke have the right to say what the Church may or may not teach. Of course we do not.

The Church says what the Church teaches. We can disagree with the Church. I personally disagree with some Church teachings - nearly all Catholics do. But, when the Church puts forth teaching X, I would not say that the Church may not teach X, or (what is worse in my opinion) mislead people by saying the Church does not teach X. That is not something I have the authority to do. The Popes have that authority. The bishops sitting together in council have that authority. The authors of this “declaration” do not, no matter how strongly or sincerely they disagree with the Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top