Salvation outside the church

[bobzills]

And my point is that the ‘new’ teachings can’t contradict the old ones. Sure we develop teachings and come up with new teachings that weren’t clearly expressed before. But they can’t contradict something that was taught in the past.

Do you get that point?

And that is why I have not been anathematised from the Catholic Church, when I suggeste4d that there have been changes in teaching, since these changes that I was referrring to can also be interpreted as theologically in conformity with the Catholic teaching on development of doctrine.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

And that is why I have not been anathematised from the Catholic Church, when I suggeste4d that there have been changes in teaching, since these changes that I was referrring to can also be interpreted as theologically in conformity with the Catholic teaching on development of doctrine.

If you were saying that Jews can be saved without accepting Jesus as the messiah, that’s pretty clearly not in conformity with catholic doctrine.

 

[SemperFidelis]

And that is why I have not been anathematised from the Catholic Church, when I suggeste4d that there have been changes in teaching, since these changes that I was referrring to can also be interpreted as theologically in conformity with the Catholic teaching on development of doctrine.

No, going from:

Old Covenant = superseded

to:

Old Covenant = never revoked and salvific for Jews (ie: dual-covenant theology)

is NOT development of doctrine. This is called evolution of doctrine and is completely different. Evolution of doctrine was condemned as an error by Pope Saint Pius X. Sounds like you need to read some Cardinal Newman, for the true meaning of doctrinal devolopment.

 

[bobzills]

If you were saying that Jews can be saved without accepting Jesus as the messiah, that’s pretty clearly not in conformity with catholic doctrine.

I think you are confusing me with a famous Catholic Cardinal. I am not the Vatican official who has been quoted along those lines.

 

[bobzills]

No, going from:

Old Covenant = superseded

to:

Old Covenant = never revoked and salvific for Jews (ie: dual-covenant theology)

is NOT development of doctrine. This is called evolution of doctrine and is completely different. Evolution of doctrine was condemned as an error by Pope Saint Pius X. Sounds like you need to read some Cardinal Newman, for the true meaning of doctrinal devolopment.

For your information, here is another document on rethinking Catholic teaching with reference to Judaism.
bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/csg/Sacred_Obligation.htm
BTW, I did not write this document, but it has been signed by one or more Catholic theologians, who no doubt take issue with your statements here on what constitutes development of doctrine. In any event, it clearly states the following:
"7. Christians should not target Jews for conversion.

In view of our conviction that Jews are in an eternal covenant with God, we renounce missionary efforts directed at converting Jews. At the same time, we welcome opportunities for Jews and Christians to bear witness to their respective experiences of God’s saving ways. Neither can properly claim to possess knowledge of God entirely or exclusively."

 

[Just_a_Thought]

This is correct. The Catholic Church has recognized those Baptisms outside the Church, where the intent is to do what the Church does, as valid from the very beginning of its history.

This is historically inaccurate. Before the third and fourth centuries, there was no universal approach to this issue. Most churches (like that in Carthage under St. Cyprian) favored rebaptizing because “No one can be baptized without the Church” and therefore “he who has been seduced into error and washed without should, in the true Baptism of hte Church, put of this very thing” (Cyprian’s epistle to Januarius). Some churches - and Rome is most notable among these - held that only the recitation of the creed and the imposition of hands was necessary to receive heretics back into the Church.

The issue came to a head during the Donatist crisis of the fourth century and the practice of “rebaptizing” schismatics, apostates and heretics was universally abolished throughout the Church.

 

[bobzills]

And my point is that the ‘new’ teachings can’t contradict the old ones. Sure we develop teachings and come up with new teachings that weren’t clearly expressed before. But they can’t contradict something that was taught in the past.

Do you get that point?

How do you explain the fact that the Eastern branch of the Catholic Church, which was in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church condemned and anathematised the addition of the filioque to the creed in 879 and that this condemnation was signed and sealed by the three papal legates of Pope Adrian II. And later on, there was a letter from Pope John VIII declaring the filioque to be unacceptable. And then how do you explain the action of Pope Leo III who refused to accept the addition of the filioque when he had the creed engraved on the silver tablets?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

How do you explain the fact that the Eastern branch of the Catholic Church, which was in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church condemned and anathematised the addition of the filioque to the creed in 879 and that this condemnation was signed and sealed by the three papal legates of Pope Adrian II. And later on, there was a letter from Pope John VIII declaring the filioque to be unacceptable. And then how do you explain the action of Pope Leo III who refused to accept the addition of the filioque when he had the creed engraved on the silver tablets?

So there was a dispute over whether to add the filioque. And eventually it was formally added, at least in the West.

This is just basic logic. You can add a non-contradictory clause, but you don’t HAVE to add it. Some were in favor of adding it and others were against. What’s the confusion here?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

No, going from:

Old Covenant = superseded

to:

Old Covenant = never revoked and salvific for Jews (ie: dual-covenant theology)

is NOT development of doctrine. This is called evolution of doctrine and is completely different. Evolution of doctrine was condemned as an error by Pope Saint Pius X. Sounds like you need to read some Cardinal Newman, for the true meaning of doctrinal devolopment.

I think you are framing this problem incorrectly. The Old Covenant is “salvific” (consequently “never revoked”) only for those Jews “who do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church,yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will” (Lumen Gentium 16).

This agrees with Scripture which says, in the present tense, that the Jew has every advantage over the Gentile (Rom 3:1-2) and that the Old Covenant becomes obsolete as the new is made known (Heb 8:13-14).

This agrees also with Tradition as witnessed by the Council of Florence, which says that the ceremonies, rites, sacrifices and sacraments of the Old Covenant ceased to be binding “after our Lord’s coming.” And, furthermore, following these precepts becomes spiritually deadly “after the promulgation of the Gospel” (Denzinger 712).

It follows then that Old Covenant became historically obsolete at the moment of the incarnation (when the Lord came into history), just as it became individually obsolete at Baptism (when the Lord comes into individuals). Likewise it follows that the Old Covenant becomes historically deadly at Pentecost (when the Gospel was completed and promulgated), just as it becomes spiritually deadly, individually, when the Gospel is properly preached (when the Gospel is promulgated to individuals).

If both propositions are understood in this manner, the apparent contradiction disappears.

 

[bobzills]

So there was a dispute over whether to add the filioque. And eventually it was formally added, at least in the West.

This is just basic logic. You can add a non-contradictory clause, but you don’t HAVE to add it. Some were in favor of adding it and others were against. What’s the confusion here?

The confusion comes in when the Eastern Church declares it a heresy to add the filioque to the creed.

 

[bobzills]

You see, there can be a legitimate deepening of understanding of the deposit of faith over time, a greater articulation and precision of language - but such deepening of understanding cannot change, cannot contradict what has already been revealed infallibly. This isn’t such a radical concept my friend, quoting from CA’s Pillar of Fire:Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
Would you agree with this? And if so, how do you mean what you wrote back in post #587?

DustinsDad

One person says it is a legitimate develpment of doctrine, another says it is a change in teaching. It is necessary to clarify it theologically and it appears that theologians differ on which is which. Anyway, please consider this.
I still think that the teaching has changed as I wrote in #587, because suppose it did not change and it was still in full and total effect. Then how do you explain the fact that when Pope Paul VI met with Patriarch Athenagoras, it was reported that both had lifted and declared null and void all the anathemas and excommunications declared one against the other.
Now if what you say was still in effect, how would this have been possible? Consider the fact that the Orthodox Church has a different teaching from the Catholic Church on the following issues:
Purgatory
Indulgences
Papal infallibility
Baptism by immersion versus sprinkling
the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God
Divorce
Statues
Venial versus mortal sin
and the list goes on.
If the teaching that you have quoted is still in effect, then why is it declared unilaterally that the anathemas and excommunications are no longer in effect?

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is historically inaccurate. Before the third and fourth centuries, there was no universal approach to this issue. Most churches (like that in Carthage under St. Cyprian) favored rebaptizing because “No one can be baptized without the Church” and therefore “he who has been seduced into error and washed without should, in the true Baptism of hte Church, put of this very thing” (Cyprian’s epistle to Januarius). Some churches - and Rome is most notable among these - held that only the recitation of the creed and the imposition of hands was necessary to receive heretics back into the Church.

The issue came to a head during the Donatist crisis of the fourth century and the practice of “rebaptizing” schismatics, apostates and heretics was universally abolished throughout the Church.

I didn’t say that this view was completely unanimous among the Early Church. Rome usually doesn’t define or clarify something, until some in the Church have an “issue” with said teaching, and when it is being challenged by several within the Church. St. Cyprian disagreed with the Pope of the time on this (Pope St. Stephen I). The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following on rebaptism:
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907:

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice [of rebaptizing], but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients.

 

[Namesake]

And my point is that the ‘new’ teachings can’t contradict the old ones. Sure we develop teachings and come up with new teachings that weren’t clearly expressed before. But they can’t contradict something that was taught in the past.

Do you get that point?

Not true. Geocentrism was contradicted by heliocentrism. Just one example of many, but it’s a biggie.

 

[SemperFidelis]

For your information, here is another document on rethinking Catholic teaching with reference to Judaism.
bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/csg/Sacred_Obligation.htm
BTW, I did not write this document, but it has been signed by one or more Catholic theologians, who no doubt take issue with your statements here on what constitutes development of doctrine. In any event, it clearly states the following:
"7. Christians should not target Jews for conversion.

In view of our conviction that Jews are in an eternal covenant with God, we renounce missionary efforts directed at converting Jews. At the same time, we welcome opportunities for Jews and Christians to bear witness to their respective experiences of God’s saving ways. Neither can properly claim to possess knowledge of God entirely or exclusively."

So, this article written by lay-professors, not endorsed by the Church is somehow infallible, and has somehow changed the Dogmas of the Church on this subject? On top of that, where are their references to official documents of the Church which state something in agreement with their position?

 

[SemperFidelis]

How do you explain the fact that the Eastern branch of the Catholic Church, which was in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church condemned and anathematised the addition of the filioque to the creed in 879 and that this condemnation was signed and sealed by the three papal legates of Pope Adrian II. And later on, there was a letter from Pope John VIII declaring the filioque to be unacceptable. And then how do you explain the action of Pope Leo III who refused to accept the addition of the filioque when he had the creed engraved on the silver tablets?

Your history of the Filioque is tainted. Sounds like you’ve been reading too much Eastern Orthodox propaganda. The Catholic Church doesn’t even recognize what the three Papal Legates condemned in 879 or the “Council” that it came from. Here’s a little quote from the Catholic Encylopedia, perhaps you should also read the rest of the article to gain a proper understanding:
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907:

Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The Old Covenant is “salvific” (consequently “never revoked”) only for those Jews “who do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church,yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will” (Lumen Gentium 16).

No, the Old Covenant is not or ever has been salvific (hence why the Old Testament Fathers had to wait in the Limbo of the Fathers for Jesus to come, so that they could go to heaven). The Jews that are saved are saved through the Catholic Church (they must be invincibly ignorant and free from mortal sin at the time of death), the one and only means of Salvation, not the Old Covenant.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The confusion comes in when the Eastern Church declares it a heresy to add the filioque to the creed.

There is no confusion if you believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of Rome.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Not true. Geocentrism was contradicted by heliocentrism. Just one example of many, but it’s a biggie.

Even Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis, who is an advocate of geocentrism, claims that the statements from the Popes on geocentrism do not meet the requirements for Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

 

[Namesake]

Even Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis, who is an advocate of geocentrism, claims that the statements from the Popes on geocentrism do not meet the requirements for Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I.

There are still geocentrists? Wow. Do they also live in caves? Do they know about fire?

 

[SemperFidelis]

There are still geocentrists? Wow. Do they also live in caves? Do they know about fire?

Yeah. I’m not a geocentrist, but it’s definitely allowed to be believed, and several apologists and Catholics actually do. There is actually a Catholic center called the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation which advocates belief in geocentrism and rejects evolution. Dr. Sungenis, who is a member, wrote his dissertation on geocentrism and has also written a book on it.