Salvation outside the church

[SemperFidelis]

I’m going to add a little more to post #631 for those who like multiple sources and because I think Dr. Ludwig Ott is quite renowned (praised by Pope Pius XII) and what he has to say is important:
Dr. Ludwig Ott:

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 292:

Book Four: The Doctrine of God the Sanctifier

Part 2: The Church

Chapter 3: The Internal Constitution of the Church

1. Christ and the Church
2. Founder of the Church - Christ founded the Church (De fide.)

Part b.) On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began. The Fathers and theologians see in the flowing forth of the bloood and water from the opened side of Jesus a symbol the emergence of the Church.

 

[bobzills]

Do you read into things what you like? .

The original quote was not in bold, but since you are bringing up this question, I will put in bold to emphasize what I thought that I was reading:

Nevermind even if it did actually bear the agreement of a majority of Bishops, the USCCB has no Doctrinal or Theological authority to make such statements for the whole Church, especially ones as heretical as this.

 

[bobzills]

Bobzills, are you actually telling us that you believe that genuine Catholic teaching is that Jews can be saved while rejecting Jesus Christ? Can you show us something from the Catechism or a papal encyclical or council document which says this?

The quotes you came up with from one Cardinal or some ecumenical group are confusing. Stick to official church teachings. If this is what the Church teaches, you should be able to come up with something more authoritative. If not, just admit you are wrong.

I and others already gave the quotes on this from various official Catholic documents, and I was then declared to be anathematised from the Catholic Church. I was only quoting from published oficial Catholic documents. I question as to whether or not the people on this forum have the authoriiy to declare me anathematised from the Catholic Church because I have quoted from documents published by Catholic officials.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I and others already gave the quotes on this from various official Catholic documents, and I was then declared to be anathematised from the Catholic Church. I was only quoting from published oficial Catholic documents. I question as to whether or not the people on this forum have the authoriiy to declare me anathematised from the Catholic Church because I have quoted from documents published by Catholic officials.

I saw you quoting from one Cardinal and some statement from a ecumenical group. Those aren’t official church documents.

 

[bobzills]

Bobzills, you never responded to this post, and I’d like to know how you’d make an argument against this as I think it’s pretty pertinent.

Please see the previous posts, such as for example, #427.

 

[bobzills]

I saw you quoting from one Cardinal and some statement from a ecumenical group. Those aren’t official church documents.

I thought that teachings of individual bishops were part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. And as such, I thought that when the bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they

“speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequium religiosum) of soul. This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (from Lumen Gentium, section 25)
So I don;t understand the statement: “Nevermind even if it did actually bear the agreement of a majority of Bishops, the USCCB has no Doctrinal or Theological authority to make such statements for the whole Church, especially ones as heretical as this.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I thought that teachings of individual bishops were part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. And as such, I thought that when the bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they

“speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequium religiosum) of soul. This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (from Lumen Gentium, section 25)
So I don;t understand the statement: “Nevermind even if it did actually bear the agreement of a majority of Bishops, the USCCB has no Doctrinal or Theological authority to make such statements for the whole Church, especially ones as heretical as this.”

It would be nice to think that no Cardinal would ever say anything wrong. But if he was quoted from something he actually spoke, and one phrase was taken out of context and reported somewhere else, it’s easy for it to be misunderstood. If what he said appears to contradict church teaching, isn’t the prudent thing to do, to look for something more official? If the church really does teach that Jews can be saved without Christ, then wouldn’t there be something in the catechism or on the Vatican web page about it?

I saw the quotes from Cardinal Kasper and I suspect that they were taken out of context by that ecumenical group. I suspect that the ecumenical group has gotten carried away and has taken liberties with church teaching. And the proof of that seems to be that there is nothing more official from the church saying that Jews can be saved without Jesus. It goes against anything I’ve ever seen from the Church about salvation. Doesn’t it go against what you’ve heard from the church about salvation?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Please see the previous posts, such as for example, #427.

What does post #427 have to do with the Old Covenant being superseded or not?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Like it or not…this change in the prayer is a BIG DEAL. It would clarify something that is now in question…that’s the role of the pope…he can settle this very easily…but it looks like he wants the uncertainty in the meaning…for political purposes.

“Let us pray, and also for the Jews. May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.”

There is no uncertainty in the meaning of these words.

You are judging right now…and rightly so…we are always in a position to judge things…however we are in no position to make that judgment for anyone but ourselves.

I meant that our judgments rightly have no authority, force or value as far as the Church is concerned.

Well, do you think the pope is God? God can allow anything he wants…for purposes we cannot clearly see if see at all.

The pope is the divinely selected Vicar of Christ, which means that he can allow anything he wants for purposes we cannot clearly see if see at all. The fact that he can imitate God in this capacity doesn’t mean I think the pope is God.

I didn’t say it was…permission is approval however…he takes on the responsibility for what is said. If it is a lie…then he must disavow it when it becomes known.

First, if permission was approval, as you say, you turn God into the approver of sin. Secondly, the pope has better things to do than to read and comment upon the thousands and thousands of letter that comes out of the various Vatican offices with the official letterhead on it.

We disagree here. It is a large issue and Kasper is his official.

It’s silly. This is not an interpretive document of the Holy See, but a smooth-talking private letter from the head of a pontifical council to some Rabbi in New York.

No, but it takes the '62 Missal and changes it…maybe. He makes yet another Missal…the '08 Missal. His previous admission means that his “new prayer” might be a new prayer that no one is really bound to use.

I agree that no one is really bound to use this prayer. It doesn’t come from the Roman Pontiff or even come from the curial agencies authorized to make such changes (e.g. CDWDS, Ecclesia Dei). This most irregular release of a liturgical change through the Secretary of State indicates that agencies and publishing houses under Bertone’s administrative authority must use and print the change and that other Catholics may use it also if they choose.

 

[bobzills]

What does post #427 have to do with the Old Covenant being superseded or not?

My typo mistake. I meant post #627.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

I think Cardinal Kasper is using the term “conversion” here in a technical way as understood by the committee that discusses our relationship with the Jews. There is some subtle distinction between sending a mission to an animist tribe and how we deal with the other great religions who already know about Yahweh (Judaism and Islam).

I think he is not suggesting that the Jews can be saved without accepting Christ as their savior.

Be that as it may, the Church uses the term to indicate a reorientation of heart and of life to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is exactly what this prayer petitions of God on behalf of Jews (cf. CCC 821, 1423, 1426, 1427, 1431; Evangelii Nuntiandi 10, Redemptoris Missio 46).

Given that the Church defines the term in this way - as a grace of God by which we give a complete and sincere adherence to Christ and his Gospel through faith - Cardinal Kasper’s statement is simply false.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Are you saying here that the majority of US Catholic bishops are heretics?

The definition of heresy in both the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1983 includes the characteristic of “obstinacy.” The fact that the document was renounced demonstrates that they are not heretics (idiots perhaps, but not heretics).

 

[DustinsDad]

I don;t beleive that you are the one to decide whether or not I have been anathematised from the Catholic Church. …

Nope. You are, by whether you hold as true First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3. Do you?

Here it is again: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And here from the same document, is this precurser - just to set the context for the canon in question:

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870, Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith, Chapter 4, Number 14:

 

[DustinsDad]

…This goes well beyond Kasper.

Agreed. The crisis is bigger than one Cardinal.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The definition of heresy in both the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1983 includes the characteristic of “obstinacy.” The fact that the document was renounced demonstrates that they are not heretics (idiots perhaps, but not heretics).

How can so many bishops not understand enough theology to know when they’re saying something inconsistent with Catholicism? Or do they just not care? How is that possible? Is this the end times?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

How can so many bishops not understand enough theology to know when they’re saying something inconsistent with Catholicism? Or do they just not care? How is that possible? Is this the end times?

What do Eusebius of Nicodemia, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Dioscorus and Sergius all have in common, besides being heretics? They were all bishops.

When you look at it from an historical perspective, we are really quite blessed to have such bumbling idiots for bishops (I’m looking at you, Cardinal McCarrick), men who want everyone to love them and so they speak and write without thinking. And then when they’re called out, they say, “O people just misunderstood what I was saying, but nevertheless I should have perhaps been clearer that…”

I can’t say whether these are endtimes, but widespread theological ineptitude among the bishops would not be cause to believe they were. As I turn the pages of Church history, I must sadly confess that it is par for the course.

 

[stmaria]

=bobzills;3333879]I thought that teachings of individual bishops were part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. And as such, I thought that when the bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they

“speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent

The statements of Individual Bishops are not infallible. This is why this is not an official teaching

 

[SemperFidelis]

My typo mistake. I meant post #627.

How does post #627 answer the questions I posed to you in post #636? This is a post by stmaria and all this does is imply Nostra Aetate teaches dual-covenant theology. First of all, NS is not at all the revolutionary document most people make it out to be and nowhere does it say the Old Covenant was never revoked or that it is or ever has been salvific for Jews. Their ridiculous “interpretation” of NS is complete BS. This post however still doesn’t answer the questions I posed to you in post #636, questions you have still neglected to answer.

 

[stmaria]

=Neil_Anthony;3333890]
I saw the quotes from Cardinal Kasper and** I suspect that they were taken out of context by that ecumenical group**. I suspect that the ecumenical group has gotten carried away and has taken liberties with church teaching. And the proof of that seems to be that there is nothing more official from the church saying that Jews can be saved without Jesus. It goes against anything I’ve ever seen from the Church about salvation. Doesn’t it go against what you’ve heard from the church about salvation?

It was not out of context. Cardinal Kasper has made these remarks before. The Document also refers to *NOSTRA AETATE *from Vatican II. It is easy to see the influence of theologian Karl Rahner in Nostra Aetate via his “Anonymous Christian” theology.

“For if a given individual** rejects **the Christianity brought to him through the preaching of the Church, even then we are still never in any position to decide whether this rejection as it exists in the concrete signifies a grave fault or an act of faithfulness to his own conscience…Thus we can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity and who, in spite of a certain encounter with Christianity, does not become a Christian, is still following the provisional path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition.” Rahner, Theological Investigations Vol 10, p 48.

Rahner, Theological Investigations Vol 10 pp 200-201.
…no man is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; a man can only lose his salvation through serious personal sin of his own…This possibility must really be given to all. “pp 200-201.

Rahner’s influence is here again.
NOSTRA AETATE
. "Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help,** supreme illumination**. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.

1. 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… Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet."

Lumen Gentium
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s
judge on the last day."

Of course the “plan of salvation” is that they accept Jesus Christ, be baptized and before death join the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation.

 

[catharina]

Of course the “plan of salvation” is that they accept Jesus Christ, be baptized and before death join the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation.

Meaning that we recognize that the Church recognizes and accepts more than our own well-known Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. Baptism of Desire and of Fire are accepted also. While I haven’t a word to say in defense of Cardinal Kaspar since I know nthing of him, I know that I learned about all these forms of Baptism in Catholic grammar school (early 1950s).