Salvation outside the church

[whatevergirl]

Salvation requires faith and good works to be rendered to God during one’s lifetime. The natural law and the old covenant provide the ability to do this to those who do not know the Gospel. They are not thereby saved apart from the Gospel, rather they are saved by the Gospel which is present in creation and in the law through signs and types. You are therefore erecting a false dichotomy as if affirming the salvific character of the natural and old laws thereby detracts from the singularity of the Gospel.

You are incorrect.

There would only be contradiction between saying “Jews are saved through the Old Covenant” and “Jews are saved through the Church” if the Church did not exist in the Old Covenant. But, mystically speaking, it did and does exist wherever and to the extent that there is truth, goodness, justice or holiness. Where is Christ, there is the Church.

I strongly suggest that you read the documents of Vatican II again. Perhaps this time maybe you’ll see and understand what these documents actually say.

I think that naturally, when one is following Christ–one will be driven to doing good works for his/her fellow man. (in honor of Christ) We are to do all things to honor Christ. I have a question though–your statement that salvation ‘requires’ good works…how about someone who is paralyzed, or bed ridden? Are prayers considered good works? Suppose someone is not able to verbalize or articulate his/her faith due to a mental challenge that he/she might have…or illness–what then? (not speaking of babies who die before the age of reason) Just speaking about teenagers…adults…who fall under those above categories? I ask, because I hesitate to make a blanket statement that salvation ‘requires’ good works. Because a lot of people might not be able to perform good works.

The reality is that none of us know who will be in heaven. We have Scripture to lead us to some good guesses–but only God can judge. God’s mind is not ours, and thus, His mercy is unfathomable. The thief hanging next to Christ–what good work did he do? He didn’t believe even, up until his final moments on earth, yet, Jesus assures him of salvation. So–I think while we have the CCC, and Scripture to guide us–we can pray for our salvation, and our loved ones’ salvation–but salvation is in God’s hands. We can control ourselves to live Godly lives–and live as best as we can following Christ–but other than that…speculating on who will and won’t be going to heaven, is really not for me to judge.

 

[SemperFidelis]

It is not clear that it was only disciplinary at the time since there were mentioned points of difference in faith, such as the filioque, in the excommunications. And according to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976

“Of these events,” ie: the events surrounding the Schism of 1054, and hence the anathemas placed on the Patriarch by Cardinal Humbert, not Doctrinal anathemas, which are irrevocable. No Pope or Council has the authority to remove those.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are the Orthodox still subject to those anathemas involving theological issues such as the filioque or papal infallibility or others?
According to Pope Paul VI: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976.

Bob,
To my understanding, (which admittedly is limited), I do not believe the Church ever formally anathematized those who reject the filioque, in a general sense. That is, there was no council or solemn proclamation with the words “If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, let him be anathema”. If I am wrong, I would be greatly indebted to you for showing me a formal church statement where this was done, and I’ll have to go do a lot of re-thinking of how I understand these things.
Sincerely,
Neil

 

[SemperFidelis]

Salvation requires faith and good works to be rendered to God during one’s lifetime. The natural law and the old covenant provide the ability to do this to those who do not know the Gospel. They are not thereby saved apart from the Gospel, rather they are saved by the Gospel which is present in creation and in the law through signs and types. You are therefore erecting a false dichotomy as if affirming the salvific character of the natural and old laws thereby detracts from the singularity of the Gospel.

You are incorrect.

There would only be contradiction between saying “Jews are saved through the Old Covenant” and “Jews are saved through the Church” if the Church did not exist in the Old Covenant. But, mystically speaking, it did and does exist wherever and to the extent that there is truth, goodness, justice or holiness. Where is Christ, there is the Church.

I strongly suggest that you read the documents of Vatican II again. Perhaps this time maybe you’ll see and understand what these documents actually say.

Which document says the Old Covenant was never revoked or that Jews can be saved outside the only means of salvation, the Church? If all you’re saying is that the Old Covenant allows Jews to more effectively live according to the Natural Law, then I agree, but if you are saying they have there own seperate means to salvation (ie: the Mosaic Covenant), then I most wholeheartedly disagree, as does the Church.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Which document says the Old Covenant was never revoked or that Jews can be saved outside the only means of salvation, the Church? If all you’re saying is that the Old Covenant allows Jews to more effectively live according to the Natural Law, then I agree, but if you are saying they have there own seperate means to salvation (ie: the Mosaic Covenant), then I most wholeheartedly disagree, as does the Church.

I think and hope that’s all these statements about the old covenant being ‘salvific’ mean.

Here’s a thought experiment I find interesting:

The new covenant started on Good Friday (or was it Holy Thursday?). Many Jews who lived abroad didn’t learn the Gospel until later, when the apostles brought the good news to the world. Some of the Jews in diaspora accepted the gospel, some rejected it. For those who accepted it, the old covenant was salvific for them because it led them to the gospel. What about those Jews under the old covenant living abroad who died after the institution of the new covenent, but before they heard the gospel? If they went to the “limbo of the fathers”, they must have been there only momentarily, because Jesus would have then presented himself to them and they would have seen their Messiah and been able to enter heaven. So for them, the old covenant was salvific, in the sense that it was the only covenant they ever knew, and when they died they could go directly to heaven.

So there must be some overlap between the old covenant and the new. Now, I’m sure we both would agree that it stretches the limits of credibility to compare the Jews of today who live among Christians could make the same claim of ignorance as Jews in the diaspora between 30AD and the arrival of Paul and the other apostles in the next few decades. But maybe for Jewish children not old enough to have learned about Christianity, it could be comparable?

 

[bobzills]

“Of these events,” ie: the events surrounding the Schism of 1054, and hence the anathemas placed on the Patriarch by Cardinal Humbert, not Doctrinal anathemas, which are irrevocable. No Pope or Council has the authority to remove those.

Apparently, then you would disagree with anyone who would state that these anathemas were solely disciplinary censures directed at one individual?
And you would also disagree with His Holiness, the Vicar of Christ, Pope Paul VI, who said: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976?

 

[bobzills]

Bob,
To my understanding, (which admittedly is limited), I do not believe the Church ever formally anathematized those who reject the filioque, in a general sense. That is, there was no council or solemn proclamation with the words “If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, let him be anathema”. If I am wrong, I would be greatly indebted to you for showing me a formal church statement where this was done, and I’ll have to go do a lot of re-thinking of how I understand these things.
Sincerely,
Neil

Hello Neil:
It looks to me like it was done in more than one place. For example, at the Council of Florence (I will mark in bold certain passages, but they were not marked in bold in the original):
"Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle.

**Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes **and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church."
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

…
**Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes **and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church."
The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV.

Thanks for that quote. I noticed that it specifically listed groups and specific people that were anathemetized by the statement, but didn’t seem to include all the greeks.

Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church. Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians; the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity.

Also in more recent times an important study showed that there is a possible common understanding between the western notion of the filioque and the eastern understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit. That they do not necessarily contradict. I’m pretty sure that non-contradiction was absolutely necessary to accept the orthodox holy orders and sacraments. That understanding would also mean that the anathema you quoted does not apply to the orthodox, or at least does not necessarily apply.

But, I clearly need to learn a lot more about this and don’t have anything else to offer on the subject. Thanks again for the quote.

 

[bobzills]

Thanks for that quote. I noticed that it specifically listed groups and specific people that were anathemetized by the statement, but didn’t seem to include all the greeks.
Also in more recent times an important study showed that there is a possible common understanding between the western notion of the filioque and the eastern understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit. That they do not necessarily contradict. I’m pretty sure that non-contradiction was absolutely necessary to accept the orthodox holy orders and sacraments. That understanding would also mean that the anathema you quoted does not apply to the orthodox, or at least does not necessarily apply.

But, I clearly need to learn a lot more about this and don’t have anything else to offer on the subject. Thanks again for the quote.

Yes. the recent statement on the filioque is important, but still there are Orthodox who don’t like it and believe that the Western theology on the filioque is not acceptable. Consider this, even though they disagree with Roman Catholics on several points of theology, Eastern Orthodox are still admitted to the Roman Catholic Sacraments, so I am not sure how anyone can say that these various anathemas and excommunications against them have not been lifted in the post-Vatican II world? I thought that a sentence of excommunication would mean that an individual would not be admitted to the Sacraments?

 

[catharina]

Yes. the recent statement on the filioque is important, but still there are Orthodox who don’t like it and believe that the Western theology on the filioque is not acceptable. … I thought that a sentence of excommunication would mean that an individual would not be admitted to the Sacraments?

“Not liking” it is not rejecting it. Also, the Sacrament of Penance is not refused to the excommunicated. Excommunications are lifted when absolution and acceptance exists. Liking it is not required.

 

[bobzills]

“Not liking” it is not rejecting it. Also, the Sacrament of Penance is not refused to the excommunicated. Excommunications are lifted when absolution and acceptance exists. Liking it is not required.

I think that there are some Orthodox who reject the Catholic teaching on the filioque. Not to mention the Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, divorce, contraception, papal infallibility, statues, purgatory, indulgences, and more. And still they are admitted to Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. How then, can these anathemas or excommunications be said to apply to them if the Pope says that the old anathemas do not apply and they are admitted to Holy Communion?

 

[Just_a_Thought]

I think that naturally, when one is following Christ–one will be driven to doing good works for his/her fellow man. (in honor of Christ) We are to do all things to honor Christ. I have a question though–your statement that salvation ‘requires’ good works…how about someone who is paralyzed, or bed ridden? Are prayers considered good works? Suppose someone is not able to verbalize or articulate his/her faith due to a mental challenge that he/she might have…or illness–what then? (not speaking of babies who die before the age of reason) Just speaking about teenagers…adults…who fall under those above categories? I ask, because I hesitate to make a blanket statement that salvation ‘requires’ good works. Because a lot of people might not be able to perform good works.

As a matter of opinion, I disagree. I think that among the severely disabled, there are good works. I think, for instance, of the holy infants of Bethlehem or of Abel: their innocent suffering was their saving virtue. I don’t think it is possible for even the most crippled human life to be utterly devoid of will and therefore works.

As a matter of dogma, however, I would say that the necessity of good works is like the necessity of Baptism, that is, an objective necessity incumbant upon all who have knowledge and freedom. In other words, the authentic meaning of the doctrine “Good works are necessary for salvation” is “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Works are just as necessary for salvation as faith itself.

The reality is that none of us know who will be in heaven.

False. I know that Mary, the angels and the saints will all be in heaven. I can name hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individuals who will be in heaven.

We have Scripture to lead us to some good guesses–but only God can judge. God’s mind is not ours, and thus, His mercy is unfathomable. The thief hanging next to Christ–what good work did he do?

He rebuked Christ’s mocker and bore witness to him during the hour of man’s redemption. I can hardly think of a saint who did greater work than St. Dismas. Similarly, I think of John the Baptist leaping inside his mother’s womb. Do not denegrate the work of those who are disabled. I might argue that Mary’s greatest work was accomplished at the foot of the cross, where we have no record of words or actions other than her presence. Suffering for the sake of Christ is work, arguably the only real work that exists.

He didn’t believe even, up until his final moments on earth, yet, Jesus assures him of salvation. So–I think while we have the CCC, and Scripture to guide us–we can pray for our salvation, and our loved ones’ salvation–but salvation is in God’s hands. We can control ourselves to live Godly lives–and live as best as we can following Christ–but other than that…speculating on who will and won’t be going to heaven, is really not for me to judge.

This is an issue of doctrine. Who accomplishes good works is just as hidden as these other things. In asserting the necessity of good works, we are not arrogating to ourselves the ability to know and judge as God knows and judges.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Which document says the Old Covenant was never revoked

Uh, the Bible. Romans 11:29. In Matthew 5:17, the Lord himself says he came not to revoke the Old Covenant. Lumen Gentium 16, reiterating the Apostle’s teaching, says that God has not revoked the gifts he made to the Jewish people. And John Paul II used these exact words in an important address on November 17, 1980: “The Old Covenant was never revoked.”

or that Jews can be saved outside the only means of salvation, the Church?

Outside the Church (qua visible structure), but not outside the Church (qua mystical reality): Lumen Gentium 8. “The Church, constituted and organized as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, possess and inner dynamis toward Catholic unity.”

If all you’re saying is that the Old Covenant allows Jews to more effectively live according to the Natural Law, then I agree

I’m saying more than that…

but if you are saying they have there own seperate means to salvation (ie: the Mosaic Covenant), then I most wholeheartedly disagree, as does the Church.

…but less than that.

I am saying that the grace of salvation is available to those “who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ his Church” (LG 16). Again, the following passage refers equally well to the Jews as to anyone else: “Whatever truth and grace are to be found among the nations is a sort of secret presence of God” (Ad Gentes 9).

 

[DustinsDad]

It is not clear that it was only disciplinary at the time since there were mentioned points of difference in faith, such as the filioque, in the excommunications. …

Again, quoting from the joint-statement:…5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Which means that all those things regarding faith and morals that the Orthodox rejected then out of rejection of the authority of the pope, or that they reject now due to their being cut off from the Church during later articulations and infallible pronouncements - well these things still separate them from the Church - despite the “gesture of justice and mutual pardon”.
Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through cleansing of hearts, through regret for historical wrongs, and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands.

Herein lies a unique situation of the Orthodox as opposed to the Protestant sects - their separation originated due to schism, not heresy. you see, with the Orthodox (and many an Orthodox will probably jump on me for this), it’s not so much that they reject the truth the Church has proclaimed and defined since their schism, it’s that they reject the Church’s proclaiming and defining it without them - still primarily a problem of schism but definately drifting into heresy now - which is still a problem for them, the rejection of such things still cuts them off from the Church. As SemperFidelas noted quite plainly -*** they are still in schism***.

Anyway, by this ecumenical “gesture” - this “nice approach” - it was and is hoped by many that past issues regarding the schism can be rectified and the ball can get-a-rolling to bring the Orthodox back into communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You can judge for yourself whether such approaches and actions have born fruit…but this was the intention - as the joint statement said:
They hope, nevertheless, that this act will be pleasing to God, who is prompt to pardon us when we pardon each other. They hope that the whole Christian world, especially the entire Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will appreciate this gesture as an expression of a sincere desire shared in common for reconciliation, and as an invitation to follow out in a spirit of trust, esteem and mutual charity the dialogue which, with Gods help, will lead to living together again, for the greater good of souls and the coming of the kingdom of God, in that full communion of faith, fraternal accord and sacramental life which existed among them during the first thousand years of the life of the Church.

The thing you’ve got to acknowledge, is that last part - the part about full communion of faith - has not happened yet. They are still in schism which means they are still cut off from Christ’s Church.

Of course with any ecumenism there is ambiguity. One could read this as if the Church is willing to “reconsider” and “reinterpret” previous infallibly defined dogmas/doctrines. Don’t hold your breath my friend.

Or one could take it to mean the hierarchy of the Church is softening the rhetoric without formally or officially changing or contradicting anything previously defined regarding faith/morals (because they can’t) as an approach to bring the Orthodox groups back home to Holy Mother Church.

And again, we can dabate the fruits and benifits - or the confusion and bad results - of this approach…but to say something previously defined as an infallible truth of the faith can be overturned or contradicted or changed in such a way as to mean something opposite of how the Church previously understood it (such as with the canons of the First Vatican Council, or that list of teachings you keep posting in regard to the Orthodox). Well…that simply can’t be done without falling into grave error.

DustinsDad

 

[whatevergirl]

As a matter of opinion, I disagree. I think that among the severely disabled, there are good works. I think, for instance, of the holy infants of Bethlehem or of Abel: their innocent suffering was their saving virtue. I don’t think it is possible for even the most crippled human life to be utterly devoid of will and therefore works.

As a matter of dogma, however, I would say that the necessity of good works is like the necessity of Baptism, that is, an objective necessity incumbant upon all who have knowledge and freedom. In other words, the authentic meaning of the doctrine “Good works are necessary for salvation” is “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Works are just as necessary for salvation as faith itself.

False. I know that Mary, the angels and the saints will all be in heaven. I can name hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individuals who will be in heaven.

He rebuked Christ’s mocker and bore witness to him during the hour of man’s redemption. I can hardly think of a saint who did greater work than St. Dismas. Similarly, I think of John the Baptist leaping inside his mother’s womb. Do not denegrate the work of those who are disabled. I might argue that Mary’s greatest work was accomplished at the foot of the cross, where we have no record of words or actions other than her presence. Suffering for the sake of Christ is work, arguably the only real work that exists.

This is an issue of doctrine. Who accomplishes good works is just as hidden as these other things. In asserting the necessity of good works, we are not arrogating to ourselves the ability to know and judge as God knows and judges.

Hello;

I was not degrading the ‘works’ of people who have illnesses or who are challenged physically in various areas. I did not mean to imply that – perhaps, I was not fully understanding your definition of works. But, I am glad you replied…I enjoyed your post–as it helped me to learn something, too–thank you!

 

[bobzills]

… you see, with the Orthodox (and many an Orthodox will probably jump on me for this), it’s not so much that they reject the truth the Church has proclaimed and defined since their schism, it’s that they reject the Church’s proclaiming and defining it without them - still primarily a problem of schism but definately drifting into heresy now - which is still a problem for them, the rejection of such things still cuts them off from the Church.

?
It is difficult to beleive what you have written here, since I have read that the Orthodox reject the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the teaching on divorce and contraception, the doctrine on Purgatory, Indulgences, the papal infallibilty, the validity of Baptism by sprinkling, the teaching on Limbo, the doctrine on original sin, etc., etc., and in spite of their rejection of all of these, they are not excommunicated or anathematised from the Roman Catholic Church since they are admitted to Holy Communion?
Do you agree or disagree with Pope Paul VI when he said: “We have made the solemn and sacred ecclesial act of lifting the old anathemas; by this act We meant to remove for ever from the memory and the heart of the Church the souvenir of these events.” La Documentation Catholique, January 1976?

 

[DustinsDad]

It is difficult to beleive what you have written here, since I have read that the Orthodox reject the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the teaching on divorce and contraception, the doctrine on Purgatory, Indulgences, the papal infallibilty, the validity of Baptism by sprinkling, the teaching on Limbo, the doctrine on original sin, etc., etc., and in spite of their rejection of all of these,

Keep reading. And talk with an Orthodox fella or two…get into such discussions deeply and beyond the kneejerk reactions and you may, like I have, found it’s sort of like this on alot of issues (not all, but alot)…The Catholic says, “it is a part of the Apostolic Faith that this object is a square…you are bound to accept this!”
The Orthodox replies, “I reject that that is a square, and I reject the Roman Church’s right to declare it as such! It is Apostolic Teaching that this is a geometric object with four sides of equal length!”
The Catholic says, “We are saying the same thing.”
The Orthodox says, “I utterly deny that! Look at what you guys did to Constantinople!”
I hope you get all that.

And also, regarding this refusal to accept the Church’s articulation of such Truths, or perhaps even the rejection of them, is addressed in the joint declaration - here it is for the umpteenth time:
Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
What part of that sentance don’t you understand?

they are not excommunicated or anathematised from the Roman Catholic Church

It’s hard to be excommunicated or anathematied when you are already in schism! Hellooooooo!!!

:banghead:

…since they are admitted to Holy Communion?

Well, the Church recognizes that the Eastern Orthodox sitll has a valid priesthood and Eucharist - but still this is a tricky one - a good prudential move or a bad one. Hmmmm. .

I wonder if this disciplinary gesture of good will will one day bear fruit by helping to bring the Orthodox home, or rather, such as in your case, it leads to confusion regarding the Truths of the faith.

…Do you agree or disagree with Pope Paul VI…?

I agree…and I know what was intended by and hoped for with that gesture…and what was not.

That is all,

DustinsDad

 

[Just_a_Thought]

I was not degrading the ‘works’ of people who have illnesses or who are challenged physically in various areas. I did not mean to imply that – perhaps, I was not fully understanding your definition of works. But, I am glad you replied…I enjoyed your post–as it helped me to learn something, too–thank you!

Thank you, also, for your thoughtful questions and graciousness.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Uh, the Bible. Romans 11:29. In Matthew 5:17, the Lord himself says he came not to revoke the Old Covenant.

This is the best you’ve got? Go try reading verses 2 Cor 3:14-16, Heb. 7:18-19, Heb. 8:7-8, Heb. 10:9, Gal 3:10-11, Gal 5:3-4. Here’s the Haydock commentaries on Matthew 5:17:
Fr. George Leo Haydock:

Ver. 17. Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ’s coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. (Witham) — To fulfil. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. (Challoner) — Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change exacted a more perfect morality. Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways: 1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin? 2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. 3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xvi.)

And Bishop Challoner’s notes on Roman 11:29
Bishop Challoner:

29 “Are without repentance”… his repenting himself of them; for the promises of God are unchangeable, nor can he repent of conferring his gifts.

Where do either of these verses actually state the Old Covenant is not revoked? Where do either of these commentaries? Even if the verses did, where do they specifically state the Covenant they are referring to is the Mosaic? Perhaps it was referring to the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Davidic, which were in fact not revoked. Answer: they don’t, a liberal interpretation of these verses has set in, and people misinterpret them to satisy an agenda, ie: claim that Jews have a seperate, saving covenant, apart from Christ and his Church (so called “dual-covenant theology.”)

God makes four promises in the Mosaic Covenant:

• To bless Israel as His special treasure, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests
• To protect Israel and give them victory over all their enemies
• To lead Israel to the land He had promised to Abraham, and grant them possession of it
• And to prosper Israel in their land

God did not repent of his gifts. He kept the promises he made above. God did however warn the Jews that if they did not keep his commandments he would curse the Jews who broke his Laws(Mosaic Covenant) in Deuteronomy 28:15, and bless those who kept his commanments in Deuteronomy 28:1. Hence the Old Covenant and its promises, and hence its Law, were conditional on the actions of the Jews. The Old Covenant was transitory and was never intended to be permanent or eternal, and Cardinal Ratzinger states as much in his book Many Religions, One Covenant:
Cardinal Ratzinger:

What strikes us first of all is that Paul makes a firm disjunction between the covenant in Christ and the Mosaic covenant; this is how we usually understand the difference between the “Old” and the “New” Covenant….In 2 Corinthians [3:4-18], Paul sets these two in diametrical opposition: the former is transitory; the latter abides perpetually. Transience is a characteristic of the Mosaic covenant.

and again on page 63:

“God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken….The conditional covenant [the Mosaic Covenant]
, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant [the New Covenant] in which God binds himself irrevocably.”

on page 67 he states:

The Old Covenant is conditional: since it depends on the keeping of the Law….By contrast, the covenant sealed in the Last Supper…is not a contract with conditions but the gift of friendship, irrevocably bestowed.

Then on page 70 he unequivocally states that:

“Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.”

Lumen Gentium 16, reiterating the Apostle’s teaching, says that God has not revoked the gifts he made to the Jewish people.

Lumen Gentium 16 references Romans 11:29, which has already been dealt with above. Promises doesn’t refer to the Law aspect of the Covenant, which in the case of the Mosaic Covenant was superseded, as it was conditional and transitory. Even then, where does Lumen Gentium 16 or any other Vatican II document actually state in specific words “the Mosaic Covenant was never superseded.” Supersessionism is Catholic. End of story.

(cont’d below)

 

[SemperFidelis]

And John Paul II used these exact words in an important address on November 17, 1980: “The Old Covenant was never revoked.”

You assume too much. Which Covenant was he referring to? There are many Covenants referred to as the “Old Covenant.” More often than not, it usually does refer to the Mosaic Covenant, but it can very well refer to the Abrahamic, Davidic, etc. Pope John Paul II doesn’t clarify. Let’s say for instance though, he did state the Old Covenant in his address referred to the Mosaic Covenant. What authority does this address carry? Was it published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis? Does it in any way meet the requirement for an Infallible statement? No it does not. What does this mean then? IF, Pope John Paul II actually intended for this statement to refer to the Mosaic Covenant, then he would be a material heretic, due to the teachings of several Councils and several Popes. Now before you go claiming I’m a sedevacantist, a Pope has no superior, and hence cannot be judged for formal heresy or deposed for heresy except by a lawful judge, ie: a subsequent Pope, the College of Cardinals who decides to elect a new Pope, or the Bishops under the authority of an Ecumenical Council. In this case though, Pope John Paul II is not guilty of material heresy because he didn’t specify, but his statements are ambigious and have no doubt led many Catholics into error, such as yourself it seems.

I am saying that the grace of salvation is available to those “who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ his Church” (LG 16). Again, the following passage refers equally well to the Jews as to anyone else: “Whatever truth and grace are to be found among the nations is a sort of secret presence of God” (Ad Gentes 9).

Precise language is the key here. Yes, a Jew can be saved if he is invincibly ignorant of the True Faith and has no stains of mortal sin on his soul at the time of death. However, his soul is joined to the Catholic Church, and hence is saved through the Catholic Church, not the Mosaic Covenant (Judaism). The Old Covenant can not of itself save him. It can help him live a life that will in effect, allow him to receive Baptism of Desire and be saved, but it is the Catholic Church that will save him.