Salvation outside the church

[SFD]

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”*

Who looks at anything this way? …except when defending the indefensible. Then call for Benedict to clarify what his man said…is the pope not in control? He could very easily disavow this statement by Kasper.

What you are claiming is that Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in an official letter, misrepresents the position and intention of the pope…and he is not corrected? There is only some reference to some unknown rebuke behind closed doors. We can’t even consider that because there is no evidence of it…and we judge externals anyway. If Benedict lets this stand…it becomes his false statement…but I suspect he agrees with it and will do nothing.

Anyway, Benedict has abrogated the old prayer and replaced it with a new prayer…or did he??? Is some pope 40 years from now going to tell us that the old prayer was never really abrogated and may be now freely used?

SFD

 

[catharina]

Anyway, Benedict has abrogated the old prayer and replaced it with a new prayer…or did he??? **Is some pope 40 years from now going to tell us that the old prayer was never really abrogated and may be now freely used? **

SFD

Absolutely not our problem.

We are to be faithful now.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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?

The act of inserting the Filioque into the Creed was an official and Dogmatic teaching and act of the Church due the teachings of several Church Councils and Popes. Cardinal Kasper’s statements in no way compare to this as he doesn’t possess the charism of Infallibility and his remarks including Keeler’s “document” Reflections which quote Kasper are not official statements of the Church and in fact contradict recent documents of the Church such as Dominus Iesus. In fact, there is no official Church pronouncement that advocates “dual-covenant theology.” The fact that Cardinal Kasper hasn’t been excommunicated is sad as it’s led many Catholics into error. This lackadaisical demeanor (read up on Pope Honorius I) has unfortunately affected many Popes. Pope Benedict XVI seems to want to try harder in correcting the erroneous opinions that the last two Popes (skipping Pope John Paul I) have allowed to go unchecked. He’s slow to move though as he doesn’t want to create large-scale schisms. Perhaps that’s why he hasn’t publically scolded or excommunicated Kasper. Either way, it’s plain for anyone to see that Kasper is a modernist.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Who looks at anything this way? …except when defending the indefensible. Then call for Benedict to clarify what his man said…is the pope not in control? He could very easily disavow this statement by Kasper.

What would it help?

What you are claiming is that Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in an official letter, misrepresents the position and intention of the pope…and he is not corrected? There is only some reference to some unknown rebuke behind closed doors. We can’t even consider that because there is no evidence of it…and we judge externals anyway.

Actually, we aren’t in a position to judge anything. We have only what is put before us, namely a bold-face lie that the prayer “doesn’t call for the conversion of the Jews.” That’s a demonstrable lie, which begs the question what else is Kasper lying about in order to smooth things over with his friends?

If Benedict lets this stand…it becomes his false statement…but I suspect he agrees with it and will do nothing.

If God lets it stand, does it become His false statement too? Your position lacks logic: Permission is not causation. This is an insignificant letter from Cardinal Kasper to some Jewish Rabbi, stop making mountains out of even less than mole hills.

Anyway, Benedict has abrogated the old prayer and replaced it with a new prayer…or did he??? Is some pope 40 years from now going to tell us that the old prayer was never really abrogated and may be now freely used?

I know you mean this sarcastically, but it’s actually a good question. This new prayer has as much to do with 1962 as Lindsay Lohan has to do with Marilyn Monroe. The former can get naked and put on a blond wig but that don’t make her Marilyn Monroe. Just the same, Benedict can publish this prayer, but that don’t make it a part of the 1962 Missal. Not unless he has the De Lorean time machine on loan from Dr. Emmit Brown.

 

[SFD]

What would it help?

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.

Actually, we aren’t in a position to judge anything. We have only what is put before us, namely a bold-face lie that the prayer “doesn’t call for the conversion of the Jews.” That’s a demonstrable lie, which begs the question what else is Kasper lying about in order to smooth things over with his friends?

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.

If God lets it stand, does it become His false statement too?

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

Your position lacks logic: Permission is not causation.

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.

This is an insignificant letter from Cardinal Kasper to some Jewish Rabbi, stop making mountains out of even less than mole hills.

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

I know you mean this sarcastically, but it’s actually a good question.

Yes.

Just the same, Benedict can publish this prayer, but that don’t make it a part of the 1962 Missal.

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.

SFD

 

[DustinsDad]

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?

I excommunicte nobody, I anathematize nobody. The Church does, and the Church has spoken. Individuals within the Church have the free will to reject Truth to their own destruction.

And you can call it my “private interpretation” all you want, but it is simply a point of fact that it is the public interpretation and solemn definition of the One True Church Christ established. Outside of which there is no salvation that the Jewish people cannot be saved outside of Holy Mother Church. .

It doesn’t take a learned theologin to recognize that this: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.
(First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3)

Means this:
It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church;
(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

And this…
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Can not mean this:
“God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”
(Cardinal Kasper, quoted in Reflections on Covenant and Mission)

Or this:
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.
(Reflections on Covenant and Mission)

It’s the law of non-contradiction. And the erroneous personal opinions of those in the hierarchy that demonstrate this tragic error will have to give an account for the souls they lead astray and for the souls they could have won for Christ but chose not to. Lord have mercy on them - and on us all.

Why doesn’t Pope Benedict publicly do something about the likes of Kasper? Maybe there’s not enough of the faithful praying for him. I don’t know. God only knows. Give the pope time. And pray.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[bobzills]

I excommunicte nobody, I anathematize nobody. The Church does, and the Church has spoken.

What boggles my mind is that you don’t even see the absurdity of what it is you are saying here. I’m sorry, I simply don’t know how to respond to this - except to say that you anathemize yourself by the very claim. Sad.

DustinsDad

You might go back and read what is meant by the prinicple of non-contradiction. You have declared me anathematised from the Catholic Church. I seriously doubt that you have the credentials to declare me anathamatised from the Catholic Church. You don;t have the credentials and you don’t have the authority. And further, you are unable to answer a simple question on how the teaching on the filioque has changed from what was declared by the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published a Creed, without any filioque, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties , all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it.

 

[bobzills]

The act of inserting the Filioque into the Creed was an official and Dogmatic teaching and act of the Church due the teachings of several Church Councils and Popes. Cardinal Kasper’s statements in no way compare to this as he doesn’t possess the charism of Infallibility and his remarks including Keeler’s “document” Reflections which quote Kasper are not official statements of the Church and in fact contradict recent documents of the Church such as Dominus Iesus. In fact, there is no official Church pronouncement that advocates “dual-covenant theology.” The fact that Cardinal Kasper hasn’t been excommunicated is sad as it’s led many Catholics into error. This lackadaisical demeanor (read up on Pope Honorius I) has unfortunately affected many Popes. Pope Benedict XVI seems to want to try harder in correcting the erroneous opinions that the last two Popes (skipping Pope John Paul I) have allowed to go unchecked. He’s slow to move though as he doesn’t want to create large-scale schisms. Perhaps that’s why he hasn’t publically scolded or excommunicated Kasper. Either way, it’s plain for anyone to see that Kasper is a modernist.

This does not explain as to how you would know whether or not Pope Benedict had a secret private conversation with Patriarch Bartholomew on the status of the filioque in the creed.

 

[DustinsDad]

…You have declared me anathematised from the Catholic Church…

I merely pointed out to you that by your own words, you anathematize yourself according to the First Vatican Council:First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3:

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.
It’s rather difficult to buy into the notion that you are not in violation of this infallible canon, when it is this very infallible canon that you say is no longer taught - which is exactly the sort of thing it’s condemning. Bizzare.

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

I
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.
bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ncs_usccb120802.htm

Why doesn’t Pope Benedict publicly do something about the likes of Kasper? Maybe there’s not enough of the faithful praying for him. I don’t know. God only knows. Give the pope time. And pray.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

In this same document the Preface says the following and this is not a quote form Cardinal Kasper. This is from the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCCB which would make it an official statement.

“The Roman Catholic reflections describe the growing respect for the Jewish tradition that has unfolded since the Second Vatican Council. A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to Jews to witness to God’s faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Futher in the document:
If the Church, therefore, shares a central and defining task with the Jewish people, what are the implications for the Christian proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ? **Ought Christians to invite Jews to baptism? This is a complex question **not only in terms of Christian theological self-definition, but also because of the history of Christians forcibly baptizing Jews.

In a remarkable and still most pertinent study paper presented at the sixth meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in Venice twenty-five years ago, Prof. Tommaso Federici examined the missiological implications of Nostra Aetate. He argued on historical and theological grounds that** there should be in the Church no organizations of any kind dedicated to the conversion of Jews. This has over the ensuing years been the de facto practice of the Catholic Church.**
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.**"

This goes well beyond Kasper.

 

[bobzills]

I merely pointed out to you that by your own words, you anathematize yourself according to the First Vatican Council:First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, Number 3:

I don;t beleive that you are the one to decide whether or not I have been anathematised from the Catholic Church. And you are unable to answer a simple question, which further diminishes your credibility in this respect.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is from the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCCB which would make it an official statement.

Fortunately, to be an official statement all USCCB documents require the agreement of a majority of U.S. Bishops to the content of the document. Before this document was published, only a couple Bishops on the committee were involved and voted in agreement with its content. Therefore, it bears no actual authority even according to USCCB standards. 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. The fact that it was withdrawn almost immediately and that it is nowhere to be found on the USCCB website or the Vatican website is testimony to its heresy.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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”*

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.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This does not explain as to how you would know whether or not Pope Benedict had a secret private conversation with Patriarch Bartholomew on the status of the filioque in the creed.

I didn’t say that I knew, I said it was possible. Therefore neither I nor you knows if it took place. You say he wasn’t asked to recant but just like me you don’t know this for sure. My response is that he very well could of been asked to recant, just in private. I can’t prove that this happened just like you can’t prove that he didn’t recant in private. It’s all speculative, but that’s what happens when there’s no absolute answer to be found. Fortunately there’s an absolute teaching regarding the Old Covenant:
The Council of Florence:

It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.

Pope Benedict XIV:

“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel." (Ex Cum Primum, #61)

Pope Ven. Pius XII:

"And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis, #29).

Pope Benedict XVI:

By their mere existence, the Twelve [Jews] – called from different backgrounds – have become a summons to all Israel to conversion and to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of the old. By entrusting to them the task of celebrating his memorial in the Supper, before his passion, Jesus shows that he wanted to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the commandment of being a sign and instrument of the eschatological assembly begun by him.

zenit.org/article-15542?l=english

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“Jesus Christ was sent by the Father to proclaim the Gospel, calling **all people to conversion and faith **” (note: this says all and doesn’t exclude the Jews)…

“The Apostles, therefore, “prompted by the Spirit, invited all to change their lives, to be converted and to be baptized”,[1] because the “pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation”.”

(DOCTRINAL NOTE ON SOME ASPECTS OF EVANGELIZATION, #1)

So let me ask you a simple question bobzills: How does Cardinal Kasper carry more authority than the above?

 

[bobzills]

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. The fact that it was withdrawn almost immediately and that it is nowhere to be found on the USCCB website or the Vatican website is testimony to its heresy.

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

 

[stmaria]

Fortunately, to be an official statement all USCCB documents require the agreement of a majority of U.S. Bishops to the content of the document. Before this document was published, only a couple Bishops on the committee were involved and voted in agreement with its content. Therefore, it bears no actual authority even according to USCCB standards. 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. The fact that it was withdrawn almost immediately and that it is nowhere to be found on the USCCB website or the Vatican website is testimony to its heresy.

Great point. And by the way I have heard that Cardinal Kasper has just announced his retirement. Effective immediately I believe

 

[SemperFidelis]

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

Do you read into things what you like? No, I clearly stated that a very very minor number of US Bishops were notified of the “Reflections” document and that it is required to carry there consent to be official. The Document required the majority of US Bishops consent, of which the Committee never asked for. Therefore the heretical document in question was never official and was immediately revoked (pun intended) and even if it was official, a committee of the USCCB doesn’t have the authority to change Dogma (a Dogma the Pope has reiterated).

 

[SemperFidelis]

Great point. And by the way I have heard that Cardinal Kasper has just announced his retirement. Effective immediately I believe

Deo Gratias!

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.”

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. Here’s the rest of my post if you’d like to re-read the whole thing.

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.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

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.