Salvation outside the church

[DustinsDad]

…It is clear that the Creed could be changed by a legitimate authority. In fact it did at the very next Council (Constantinople). The Eastern Orthodox don’t reject that the Creed could be changed by a legitimate authority. They reject that the Pope by himself has the authority to make such a change and that only a Council could in fact do so. The Filioque is orthodox, just read what the Early Church Fathers had to say on the subject. It is not something that was just pulled out of thin air.

Not at all true. The “Council” you are referring to you is in fact not an Ecumenical Council and is not accepted by Rome as such. You are referring to the Photian Council which in effect reversed the decisions of the actual Council of Constantinople IV and occured ten years after the actual Fourth Council of Constantinople.

Once again, the Dogma is evident once you read the Early Church Fathers. Nothing comes out the blue and the Filioque is not some new innovation like you seem to imply. It is the Apostolic Faith.

Man, you have been doing your homework! I have bellied up to the trough of knowledge and slurrped.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Just_a_Thought]

I want to know the meaning of this passage of Scripture:

II Corinthians 4:3,4- “3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

It means that God reveals himself in such a way that there is enough light for those who wish to see and yet enough darkness for those who prefer to remain blind. We do not receive salvation through a reflex of the mind in recognizing truth, but through an act of the will which, in turn, allows the mind to recognize the truth of divine revelation.

This passage does not have direct bearing on the question at hand because 1) those who maintain the stricter sense of extra ecclesia nulla salus can cite it as proof that non-Catholics remain blind through their own choice, and 2) those who maintain the less strict sense of EENS can cite it as proof that some “non-Catholics” can receive sufficient revelation and sanctifying grace through a divinely inspired act of the will which is hidden from our sight. The passage is, in itself, amenable to both positions.

 

[catharina]

Not at all true. Read the parts of several of Blessed Pius IX’s encyclicals that deal with invincible ignorance. Read Pope Saint Pius X’s Catechism or the Baltimore Catechism that deal with the same things. Read Ven. Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguouri, or the Council of Trent on Baptism of Desire. Jews are not and have never been saved as Jews or by the Old Covenant. If they are saved, it’s because they are joined to the soul of the Catholic Church by desire (either implicitly or explicitly) and are hence saved as Catholics.

First of all, Kasper is not Pope Benedict XVI’s “right hand man.” Second, how do you know that Cardinal Kasper was not “scolded” for his comments by Pope Benedict in private. Such could certaintly be the case. Third, the document “Relections on Covenant and Mission” was never endorsed by the Bishops and the USCCB and even if it did it still carries no authority or weight. Fourthly, the document was immediately pulled from the USCCB website as it was clearly seen to cause scandal and that it was largely erroneous and heretical. Here’s the not so revolutionary Nostra Aetate on the Old Covenant:

“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.” - Nostra Aetate #4, second paragraph

Let me join Dustin’s Dad for the thank you. It’s so nice to see that SOMEONE has gotten this straight. Salvation is within the Church.

Some (many?) are within the Church and don’t even know it!

 

[SemperFidelis]

Man, you have been doing your homework! I have bellied up to the trough of knowledge and slurrped.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Let me join Dustin’s Dad for the thank you. It’s so nice to see that SOMEONE has gotten this straight. Salvation is within the Church.

Some (many?) are within the Church and don’t even know it!

Thank you both very much and God Bless.

 

[catharina]

Thank you both very much and God Bless.

… and Gid bless you as well!

 

[bobzills]

If Kasper believes this as you say it, Kasper anethamatizes himself by rejecting Church teaching.

Please tell me where you have the authority to excommunicate and anathematise the right hand man of the present Pope , Cardinal Kasper, according to your private interpretation of Church teaching? Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission," as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” In the document “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” it is argued that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all,” Jews do not need that saving act because they “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.”

 

[bobzills]

But, perhaps Cardinal Kaspars Masonic credentials are not

On what basis do you declare Cardinal Kasper a Mason, other than your own private interpretation of Catholic teaching?

 

[bobzills]

Once again, the Dogma is evident once you read the Early Church Fathers. Nothing comes out the blue and the Filioque is not some new innovation like you seem to imply. It is the Apostolic Faith.

It was not in the early creed, which declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do you deny that the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Constantinople I declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and anyone who adds or subtracts anything from the creed is anathematised? I don;t think you would deny this, but you would say that it could be changed by proper authority. That is exactly the same as what I have been asserting, and when I asserted that in a different instance, a proper authority could do such, a blogger here flatly said that I was subject to the ecclesastical curse of anathematisation!

 

[SemperFidelis]

Please tell me where you have the authority to excommunicate and anathematise the right hand man of the present Pope , Cardinal Kasper, according to your private interpretation of Church teaching? Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission," as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” In the document “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” it is argued that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all,” Jews do not need that saving act because they “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.”

So clearly you do not know the actual teaching of Church regarding the Old Covenant or you would know that Cardinal Kasper is guilty of making heretical remarks. Once again, how do you Pope Benedict XVI didn’t “scold” him in private and you just never knew about it. Read Many Religions, One Covenant if you want to know Pope Benedict’s (then Cardinal Ratzinger) thoughts on the Old Covenant. I’ll give you a hint…they are contrary to Cardinal Kasper’s. This is ecumenism gone mad and the critical articles on Cardinal Kasper and his Jewish comments are more abundant than anyone could count. It makes you wonder why the TAC Anglo-Catholics didn’t want to go to Cardinal Kasper when they decided they wanted to come into the Church and instead went straight to Pope Benedict himself doesn’t it?

 

[SemperFidelis]

It was not in the early creed, which declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do you deny that the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Constantinople I declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and anyone who adds or subtracts anything from the creed is anathematised? I don;t think you would deny this, but you would say that it could be changed by proper authority. That is exactly the same as what I have been asserting, and when I asserted that in a different instance, a proper authority could do such, a blogger here flatly said that I was subject to the ecclesastical curse of anathematisation!

What proper authority has made any change to the effect that you think it has (ie: like the Old Covenant)?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

“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.” - Nostra Aetate #4, second paragraph

Unfortunately, this is a poor translation of Nostra Aetate. Here’s the passage in Latin:

Quare nequit Ecclesia oblivisci se per populum illum, quocum Deus ex ineffabili misericordia sua Antiquum Foedus inire dignatus est, Revelationem Veteris Testamenti accepisse et nutriri radice bonae olivae, in quam inserti sunt rami oleastri Genti.

This verb “inire” is from “ineo,” which means to undertake, establish, commence, begin or enter upon. It does not mean “to conclude” in the sense that you infer (i.e. terminate, bring to an end, render obsolete, draw to a close). The passage doesn’t use the Latin verb “concludere” from which we derive the English “to conclude.” It isn’t exactly a mistranslation - in English, we can say that the two parties concluded upon an agreement. This usage could be translated into the Latin with “ineo.” It isn’t a mistranslation, but the term doesn’t carry the connotation you folks want it to carry.

In other words, this passage from Nostra Aetate does not render an opinion about whether “the Ancient Covenant” is still in effect.

 

[SFD]

SemperFidelis:

After Vatican II, I gave you the quote where it has been declared by the right hand man of Pope Benedict that Judaism is salvific for a Jew.

First of all, Kasper is not Pope Benedict XVI’s “right hand man.” Second, how do you know that Cardinal Kasper was not “scolded” for his comments by Pope Benedict in private. Such could certaintly be the case.

“When the Pope presently speaks on the conversion of Jews, then you have to understand correctly. He cited literally the Eleventh Chapter of the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. The apostle, says that we, as Christians, hope, when the fullness of pagans enters the church, then that Israel will completely convert. This is an eschatological hope for the end of the ages, which does not mean that we have the intention now to be missionaries to Jews as one sends missions to the heathens.”

sidic.org/doc/DOC00353_Doc00558.pdf

This official correspondence places beyond any doubt the true intention of the Vatican in replacing the prayer. I think it is reasonable to point out that Benedict could contradict Kasper, and imply or state that the latter has spoken out of turn. It is true, he could do so. But in fact, he has not. Benedict appointed Walter Kasper to his position in charge of “dialogue” with the Jews, and therefore he takes responsibility for Kasper’s acts, unless and until he explicitly disavows them.

SFD

 

[bobzills]

So clearly you do not know the actual teaching of Church regarding the Old Covenant or you would know that Cardinal Kasper is guilty of making heretical remarks.

Are we supposed to beleive that you have more authority in the Catholic Church than the right hand man of the present Pope. Here’s what the Vatican says about Cardinal Kasper:
"Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, was born on 5 March 1933 in Heidenheim/Brenz, Germany. He was ordained for the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart on 6 April 1957 and holds a doctorate in theology from the Theological Faculty of Tübingen.
For three years he was an assistant to Leo Scheffczyk and Hans Küng before receiving his “habilitation” with a thesis on the philosophy and theology of history in Schilling’s later philosophy. He taught dogmatic theology and was dean of the theological faculty in Münster and later in Tübingen.

He was appointed Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart on 17 April 1989 and received episcopal consecration on 17 June. In 1994 he was named co-chair of the International Commission for Lutheran/Catholic Dialogue. On 1 June 1999 he was appointed Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

On 3 March 2001 he was named President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Created and proclaimed Cardinal by John Paul II in the consistory of 21 February 2001, of the Deaconry of Ognissanti in Via Appia Nuova (All Saints in Via Appia Nuova).

Member of:

Congregations: for the Doctrine of the Faith; for the Oriental Churches;
Pontifical Councils: for Culture, for Legislative Texts; for Inter-religious Dialogue;
Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura;
XI Ordinary Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops;
Special Council for Lebanon of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. "
vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_kasper_w_en.html
If Cardinal Kasper is a heretic, or guilty of heretical remarks, why does the Vatican give such a glowing report on him and his accomplishments in today’s Church?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Please tell me where you have the authority to excommunicate and anathematise the right hand man of the present Pope , Cardinal Kasper, according to your private interpretation of Church teaching? Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission," as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” In the document “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” it is argued that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all,” Jews do not need that saving act because they “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.”

If that’s what Kaspar said, why is the pertinent part (i.e. “Jews do not need that saving act”) outside the quotation marks. Come clean. Let’s see the whole passage not just the snippets you feel like bringing to light. Let’s see the part where Kaspar actually says “Jews do not need the saving act of Christ.”

Otherwise, I am let to conclude that Kaspar’s comments are actually in agreement with the theology of Vatican II which says that the Old Covenant is saving only to those Jews who do not know that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ. This is in itself problematic, but surely less so than what you are representing.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Please tell me where you have the authority to excommunicate and anathematise the right hand man of the present Pope , Cardinal Kasper, according to your private interpretation of Church teaching? Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission," as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” In the document “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” it is argued that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all,” Jews do not need that saving act because they “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.”

Let’s add a little more to this. Just for arguments sake let’s say that the Old Covenant hasn’t in fact been revoked as you understand it. Where does that get the Jews? Nowhere, as the Old Covenant wasn’t salvific for the Jews of the Old Testament so there’s no way it could be salvific for the Jews of today. The Limbo of the Fathers is de fide. Read up on it. Second, let’s go a little further. Let’s for arguments sake say the Old Covenant was in fact salvific. Where does that get the Jews of today? Nowhere, as the Jews of today don’t and can’t follow the central tenants of Judaism (no Temple anymore). The Jewish religion today is vastly different (no Priesthood) than Old Testament Judaism and is more accurately described as “post-Temple Judaism” or " “Talmudic Rabbiism.” I’m not one to go around accusing every heretic I think I see in the Church but Cardinals Kasper and Keeler (the architect of Reflections…) have been so clearly influenced by liberalism and false ecumenism that it’s tainted their Covenant Theology and it’s easy to see that their remarks are so clearly contrary to the teachings of the Church. Their thoughts on the Old Covenant lack any logic whatsoever and it is clear for anyone who understands even the slightest bit about Covenant Theology.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Unfortunately, this is a poor translation of Nostra Aetate. Here’s the passage in Latin:

Quare nequit Ecclesia oblivisci se per populum illum, quocum Deus ex ineffabili misericordia sua Antiquum Foedus inire dignatus est, Revelationem Veteris Testamenti accepisse et nutriri radice bonae olivae, in quam inserti sunt rami oleastri Genti.

This verb “inire” is from “ineo,” which means to undertake, establish, commence, begin or enter upon. It does not mean “to conclude” in the sense that you infer (i.e. terminate, bring to an end, render obsolete, draw to a close). The passage doesn’t use the Latin verb “concludere” from which we derive the English “to conclude.” It isn’t exactly a mistranslation - in English, we can say that the two parties concluded upon an agreement. This usage could be translated into the Latin with “ineo.” It isn’t a mistranslation, but the term doesn’t carry the connotation you folks want it to carry.

In other words, this passage from Nostra Aetate does not render an opinion about whether “the Ancient Covenant” is still in effect.

I have no doubts your Latin is better than mine, but your issue is with the Vatican website, not me, as I only copied and pasted the quote straight from www.vatican.va

 

[Just_a_Thought]

This official correspondence places beyond any doubt the true intention of the Vatican in replacing the prayer. I think it is reasonable to point out that Benedict could contradict Kasper, and imply or state that the latter has spoken out of turn. It is true, he could do so. But in fact, he has not. Benedict appointed Walter Kasper to his position in charge of “dialogue” with the Jews, and therefore he takes responsibility for Kasper’s acts, unless and until he explicitly disavows them.

This letter was not presented to the pope and approved by him in audience and, therefore, cannot be considered an official act of the Apostolic See. It has no canonical authority whatsoever. It is - as we used to call it - “pillow talk.” What the Cardinal claims is patently false. The new prayer asks God “to enlighten their * hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of all men.”

It is entirely without basis, then, that Cardinal Kasper claims, “The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews.” This claim is simply and obviously a lie or, if you like, “that was just pillow talk, baby”*

 

[SemperFidelis]

sidic.org/doc/DOC00353_Doc00558.pdf

This official correspondence places beyond any doubt the true intention of the Vatican in replacing the prayer. I think it is reasonable to point out that Benedict could contradict Kasper, and imply or state that the latter has spoken out of turn. It is true, he could do so. But in fact, he has not. Benedict appointed Walter Kasper to his position in charge of “dialogue” with the Jews, and therefore he takes responsibility for Kasper’s acts, unless and until he explicitly disavows them.

SFD

While I’m not a fan of the new prayer myself as I like the old prayer (not that is matters as the Pope has the authority to change it and has done so) I don’t think in any way the new prayer is heretical. The letter above is clearly Cardinal Kasper’s personal opinion, and does nothing to actually speak about the Pope’s intentions. I go with the Remnant magazine’s take on the situation:

websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2477421

Like I said earlier I would rather have the old Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, but the new prayer ticks Abe Foxman off, so that in itself is a victory. I would also venture to say 99% of Jews who know of the new prayer, all think that it is prayer for the conversion of Jews to Catholicism, and that also is a good thing.

 

[bobzills]

Once again, how do you Pope Benedict XVI didn’t “scold” him in private and you just never knew about it.

I think that this is a silly question. No one knows what someone else said in private, by definition of the term “private.” How do you know that Pope Benedict did not tell Patriarch Bartholomew in private that it was a mistake for the Church to add the filioque to the creed without first checking the translation with the interpretation given to it by the Eastern Church?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Are we supposed to beleive that you have more authority in the Catholic Church than the right hand man of the present Pope.

Once again, he is not the right hand man of the Pope, Bertone is. That’s besides the point though. No, I do not have more authority than Cardinal Kasper, but Cardinal Kasper does not have the authority to change a perennial Dogma of the Church. He does not possess the charism of infallibility and it’s clear to anyone who knows anything about Dogmatic Theology or Covenant Theology that he is wrong. There is no official document of the Church stating that the Mosaic Covenant has not been superseded or that it is or ever has been salvific. Your want to give the level of Infallibility to Cardinal Kasper is pure lunacy and is in no way compatible with the teachings of the Church. Why Pope Benedict XVI keeps him around when he contradicts his own teachings on the Old Covenant I don’t know. Cardinal Kasper is close to retirement age, and perhaps Pope Benedict has just decided to leave him around so as to not ruffle any feathers. Neither I nor you know the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI and why he has decided to keep him around but one thing is clear: Cardinal Kasper has contradicted a Dogma of the Church, not to mention the Pope’s teachings on the matter and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. He is not infallible and his personal opinion on the matter carries absolutely no authority or weight.