Pope: Other denominations not true churches

[El_camino]

No. It is no longer acceptable to evangelize the Jews.
See “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” a joint Catholic-Jewish document :
“A deepening appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people . . . lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

You are mistaken about this document… it is not binding on Catholics because, although it was published, it was not approved by the Bishops as a whole (binding documents must be unanimously approved) and it never received the stamp of approval by the HOly See (another prerequisite for it to be binding)… so, it has never been accepted.

This is very analogous to what happened for instance in the Council Trent, where there were some Bishops that were FOR rejecting Tradition but this was NOT approved by the Bishops as a whole, thus it was never accepted and thus not binding.

This document is a clear example of how the desire not to offend can result in bad theology, but what is interesting is that this same document cites Nostra Aetate, a post Vatican II encyclical by Pope Paul VI that reads: “The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people.”

Many blessings,

E.C.

P.S. You might want to read about this some more:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp

 

[bobzills]

You are mistaken about this document… it is not binding on Catholics because, although it was published, it was not approved by the Bishops as a whole (binding documents must be unanimously approved) and it never received the stamp of approval by the HOly See (another prerequisite for it to be binding)… so, it has never been accepted.

Is this document heretical or not?

 

[El_camino]

Is this document heretical or not?

Define heresy… if by heresy you mean a “false belief” or “bad theology”… then yes…

I remind you that someone may maintain a heresy (meaning a false belief or bad theology) and yet not be a heretic… A heretic is someone that knowing where the truth is, he, due to pride or malice, decides to reject it and embrace a false belief or bad theology…

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[rpp]

Is this document heretical or not?

A document can be wrong or come to incorrect conclusions and make incorrect suggestions without being heretical.

“Heretical” could only be used to describe it if it came from a **Catholic **source and promoted a teaching that went against the teachings of the Church.

Having a Jew tell me not to evangelize Jews is not heresy. It is more like a child a child telling me he does not want to take the medicine that will cure his sickness.

 

[rpp]

No. It is no longer acceptable to evangelize the Jews.
See “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” a joint Catholic-Jewish document :
“A deepening appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people . . . lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

I have read this document. Here is a link to it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2477718

It does not say it is no longer acceptable to evangelize Jews. To say that it does is a distortion. In fact, the document says exactly the opposite.

Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted.

Perhaps that is why you did not want to link to it.

Note that the paragraphs of this document are not numbered and it does not follow the standard form and format Church documents.

As this document is the joint product of the USCCB Committee for Ecumenical Affairs and the National Council of Synagogues (a Jewish organization in the USA) it is **not **binding on the faithful. Not that it matters because it does not say bobzills said it did.

 

[bobzills]

Define heresy… if by heresy you mean a “false belief” or “bad theology”… then yes…

Well, that’s not right. I mean, shouldn’t an American Catholic follow what the American bishops teach, unless there is a warning from the Holy Office otherwise?

 

[bobzills]

It does not say it is no longer acceptable to evangelize Jews. To say that it does is a distortion. In fact, the document says exactly the opposite.
Perhaps that is why you did not want to link to it.

Note that the paragraphs of this document are not numbered and it does not follow the standard form and format Church documents.

As this document is the joint product of the USCCB Committee for Ecumenical Affairs and the National Council of Synagogues (a Jewish organization in the USA) it is **not **binding on the faithful. Not that it matters because it does not say bobzills said it did.

Please see:
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550

ctlibrary.com/7030

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp

jewishworldreview.com/0802/mission_ends.asp

seattlecatholic.com/article_20020816_A_Keelhaul_of_the_Faith.html

See:
americancatholic.org/Messenger/Nov2002/Wiseman.asp

“In their part of Reflections on Covenant and Mission, the Catholics assert that the Church’s evangelizing task “no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.””

 

[El_camino]

Well, that’s not right. I mean, shouldn’t an American Catholic follow what the American bishops teach, unless there is a warning from the Holy Office otherwise?

When a declaration or statement is made by the US Bishop conference (or from any other country for that matter), for it to be binding on Catholics, they must (1) be endorsed by all the bishops as a whole (2) received the stamp of approval from the Holy See. Until then, the document or statement IS not binding.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[mercygate]

You are mistaken about this document… it is not binding on Catholics because, although it was published, it was not approved by the Bishops as a whole (binding documents must be unanimously approved) and it never received the stamp of approval by the HOly See (another prerequisite for it to be binding)… so, it has never been accepted.

This is very analogous to what happened for instance in the Council Trent, where there were some Bishops that were FOR rejecting Tradition but this was NOT approved by the Bishops as a whole, thus it was never accepted and thus not binding.

This document is a clear example of how the desire not to offend can result in bad theology, but what is interesting is that this same document cites Nostra Aetate, a post Vatican II encyclical by Pope Paul VI that reads: “The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people.”

Many blessings,

E.C.

P.S. You might want to read about this some more:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp

Thank you. This is about the 4th time it has been pointed out that the Kaspar document is a white paper and not a magisterial statement.

 

[christcnection1]

http://www.thinkawesome.com/pz/ham.gif

Now we are really getting places on this thread!

 

[KathleenElsie]

http://www.thinkawesome.com/pz/ham.gif

Now we are really getting places on this thread!

The best part is when the hamster stops. He looks around in confusion wondering why he has not gotten anywhere.

 

[christcnection1]

The best part is when the hamster stops. He looks around in confusion wondering why he has not gotten anywhere.

I’m just hoping the rodent realizes it can get off the thing so it can actually make some progress!

 

[robben29]

When I went to Fr Groeschel’s conference in Williamsville 2 years ago, he said that teh Pope was so humble that he took the name of St Benedict Joseph Labre:

Why Benedict Joseph Labre? He was a Frenchman born in 1748 whose love for God was so great that he longed to enter the contemplative religious life. Repeatedly his desires were thwarted by the mental illness that afflicted him throughout his life. Inspired by God, he spent the final thirteen years of his life as a pilgrim beggar in the city of Rome where he was noted for his devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and Mary, Mother of God. He died in Rome April 16, 1783 and was canonized by Pope Leo XIII on December 8, 1881. Pope Leo said at Benedict Joseph Labre’s canonization, “He was holiness itself.”

Benedict Joseph Labre died on April 16. Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) was born on April 16.

 

[rpp]

Please see:
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550

ctlibrary.com/7030

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp

jewishworldreview.com/0802/mission_ends.asp

seattlecatholic.com/article_20020816_A_Keelhaul_of_the_Faith.html

See:
americancatholic.org/Messenger/Nov2002/Wiseman.asp

“In their part of Reflections on Covenant and Mission, the Catholics assert that the Church’s evangelizing task “no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.””

None of this changes the fact that this is a non-binding document written in cooperation with non-Catholics regarding Catholic doctrine and practice. Non-Catholics do not have any standing when it comes to helping develop Catholic doctrine. This reflections document was written anonymously and simply presented jointly by the USCCB and a US Jewish organization. Finally, the document proposes a change in Catholic Doctrine that effoerts to bring the salvific message of Christ to the Jews. This most certainly is a change because it was Jesus Himself who brought His message first to the Jews.

In short, your assertion is incorrect. the “Reflections” paper has no relevance. It is theologically unsound and should be ignored. It is not binding on the faithful in any country or at any time. The USCCB does not have the power to change doctrine.

Now it is time to stop this silly discussion.

 

[rpp]

I’m just hoping the rodent realizes it can get off the thing so it can actually make some progress!

 

[estesbob]

When a declaration or statement is made by the US Bishop conference (or from any other country for that matter), for it to be binding on Catholics, they must (1) be endorsed by all the bishops as a whole (2) received the stamp of approval from the Holy See. Until then, the document or statement IS not binding.

Many blessings,

E.C.

The ironic part is when the Church does try to be ecumenical its detractors parse the documents in hte worst possble way and scream “SEE I TOLD YOU THE CHURCH CHANGES ITS TEACHINGS.”!!

And no , Ameircan catholicsa are not reqeuired to adhere to the Amercian Council of Bishops postion papers.

 

[bobzills]

This reflections document was written anonymously and simply presented jointly by the USCCB and a US Jewish organization. Finally, the document proposes a change in Catholic Doctrine that effoerts to bring the salvific message of Christ to the Jews. This most certainly is a change because it was Jesus Himself who brought His message first to the Jews.

… the “Reflections” paper has no relevance. It is theologically unsound and should be ignored. It is not binding on the faithful in any country or at any time. The USCCB does not have the power to change doctrine.

Now it is time to stop this silly discussion.

I am flabberghasted that a Catholic would think that a discussion of a serious document by the US Catholic Bishops is silly. And that he would think that an official document of the US Catholic Bishops has not relevance.

 

[mercygate]

I am flabberghasted that a Catholic would think that a discussion of a serious document by the US Catholic Bishops is silly. And that he would think that an official document of the US Catholic Bishops has not relevance.

It has relevance in the discussion but is by no means definitive. By no means definitive.

For the umpty-eleventh time.

 

[bobzills]

In short, your assertion is incorrect. the “Reflections” paper has no relevance.

It has relevance in the discussion but is by no means definitive. .

 

[bobzills]

I have read this document. Here is a link to it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2477718

It does not say it is no longer acceptable to evangelize Jews. To say that it does is a distortion. In fact, the document says exactly the opposite.

Finally, the document proposes a change in Catholic Doctrine that effoerts to bring the salvific message of Christ to the Jews. This most certainly is a change because it was Jesus Himself who brought His message first to the Jews.