The Old Covenant & the Jews

[PreVatII]

Between the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraph 121, and the writings of Cardinal Kasper, I am wondering if “The Great Commission” is still in effect? What about the “Theology of Return?” Have I missed something?

Is the Roman Catholic Church still the Ark of Salvation, founded by Jesus Christ, or just one of many ways to the Father? Forty years after the closing of the Second Vatican Council, I’m still shaking my head in total amazement!

 

[Ghosty]

There’s nothing in the Catechism that says that Salvation doesn’t come through the Church. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Church teachings that says that Jews are not called to come to the Church. There is a big difference between respecting other people, and denying the Truth, which can only be found in its fullness within the Catholic Church.

 

[EENS]

Don’t waste your time trying to reconcile VII and CCC… just trash any CCC you have and start reading traditional material.

Yes, Jews still need to convert (as well as all non-Catholics).

Yes, there is not salvation outside the Church, PERIOD.

Yes, only those baptized and joined visibly to the Church are a part of the Church.

No, invincible ignorance and desire for Baptism (let alone “implicit desire” for Baptism) do not suffice for salvation.

No, dying for the Faith outside of Baptism is not sufficient for salvation (c.f. St. John iii. 5 & Council of Florence).

God bless.

 

[Ghosty]

Don’t waste your time trying to reconcile VII and CCC… just trash any CCC you have and start reading traditional material.

If you want to be a Protestant, by all means trash the CCC. If you want to be a Catholic, however, you must understand that the CCC is the teaching authority in its use by the current Pope and Council of Bishops. If you believe that the CCC is somehow in contradiction with Tradition, then you don’t know what Tradition is, and you believe that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church, and that Jesus is a liar.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

EENS:

Don’t waste your time trying to reconcile VII and CCC… just trash any CCC you have and start reading traditional material.

Yes, there is not salvation outside the Church, PERIOD.

Yes, only those baptized and joined visibly to the Church are a part of the Church.

No, invincible ignorance and desire for Baptism (let alone “implicit desire” for Baptism) do not suffice for salvation.

No, dying for the Faith outside of Baptism is not sufficient for salvation (c.f. St. John iii. 5 & Council of Florence).

God bless.

Nonsense: the CCC was promulgated by the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Sucessor to Saint Peter, who cannot lead us into error. In his words, it is a “sure and certain norm” for teaching the truth of the Catholic Faith. God bless YOU!

 

[Damascene]

EENS:

just trash any CCC you have and start reading traditional material.

You yourself could use some traditional material. How about St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance?

Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”. (from Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, nn. 95-97)

EENS:

Yes, only those baptized and joined visibly to the Church are a part of the Church.

On the contrary, “And as the catechumens have the sign of the cross on their forehead, they are already of the great house; but from servants let them become sons. For they are something who already belong to the great house” (St. Augustine, Tract. in Ioann. 11:4). This traditional teaching was explicitly confirmed and taught by the Second Vatican Council (cf. Lumen Gentium 14; Ad Gentes 14) and is therefore true and Catholic doctrine.

EENS:

No, dying for the Faith outside of Baptism is not sufficient for salvation (c.f. St. John iii. 5 & Council of Florence).

Personal interpretation of John 3:5?

Reply to the second objection: Those who are reborn by Baptism of blood and fire, do not have regeneration in act, although they have it in desire . . .] Therefore in order that a man enter the kingdom of God, it is necessary that he have Baptism of water in fact, just as in all the baptized; or in desire, just as in the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfulling their desire; or in figure, as in the ancient fathers. (St. Thomas, Super Io., cap. 3 l. 1)

Sts. Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose, and Thomas would seem to be better authorities on the meaning of the passage than you. Where does the Council of Florence state that one cannot be within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church without having actually received Baptism of Water? You do know that the passage of Cantate Domino you refer to on “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is an exact quote from St. Fulgentius’ De Fide Ad Petrum, which teaches that catechumens who are slain for the Faith are saved without Baptism of Water?

Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering, when one confesses Christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? . . .] it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had “another baptism to be baptized with.” . . .]

But some one says, “What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?” “The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence,” and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. (St. Cyprian, Letter 72:21-23)

 

[Ghosty]

In short, PreVatII, be very, very wary of the advice that EENS gives if you have any interest in being Catholic, a member of the Church founded by Christ and centered around the See of Peter.

 

[CARose]

Hi EENS,

Please take a deep breath! Ahhhh.

Thank you.

OK, now, let me go through your last post point by point. It seems you missunderstand the meaning and intent of many things in the CCC and it’s causing you great difficulty in that you’re on the verge of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

I suspect you may have a liberal parish in your area, perhaps even a liberal Bishop, I can appreciate how difficult that might be. But remember, this is exactly how we ended up with Protestantism. Don’t make the same error.

So, here are some thing I hope you might consider thinking about:

EENS:

Yes, Jews still need to convert (as well as all non-Catholics).

Christ died to save the entire world, including the Jews. If a Jewish person has never had the opportunity to truly understand that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Messiah whom they await, and this Jewish person lives a good and holy life, praying according to their understanding of what God desires of them, do you truly believe they will perish in Hell? This is a heresy which has been condemned, as recently as I believe the 50’s with a prominent American Priest. I’m sorry I forget the details.

eens:

Yes, there is not salvation outside the Church, PERIOD.).

True, but I think you misunderstand what this means. There is no salvation without the Church. It is only through the Church that grace is made available to the world. The Church exists because Christ established it, and it is His Mystical Body. Without His body and the sacrifice He gave, the gates of heaven would not be open for anyone, let alone Jews, or other non-Catholics.

eens:

Yes, only those baptized and joined visibly to the Church are a part of the Church.).

I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken here. Christ died to save all. Does this mean that all will be saved. No, not everyone chooses to accept His most gracious and merciful gift. Again, those who do not realize that the Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church established by Christ for our salvation are not excluded from his plan for salvation on this one point alone.

If one lives according to the best formed conscience they have and serve God accordingly, it is God who determines their fate. The Catholic Church does not teach who is to be condemned for we retain hope for all souls, leaving Justice to the final Judge, God himself.

eens:

No, invincible ignorance and desire for Baptism (let alone “implicit desire” for Baptism) do not suffice for salvation.).

I believe you’re incorrect here eens.

eens:

No, dying for the Faith outside of Baptism is not sufficient for salvation (c.f. St. John iii. 5 & Council of Florence). ).

What about the early Martyrs who were catechumens at the time of their martydom? It was for them that the recognition of Baptism by blood and baptism by desire were recognized. They are saints of the Church. Peter and his successors have the keys to the kingdom and I go with what they say on this point.

eens:

God bless.

God Bless you too eens,

CARose

 

[Apolonio]

CARose,

Let me answer you directly on your concern because I have researched on it a lot.

Cardinal Kasper is very careless in his statements, but some of his statements can be reconciled with CCC and Vatican 2. I’ll give you a simple historical context…

In the past century, we Latin Rite Catholics have always told everyone to “convert.” But the word “convert” is misleading to some, including our Eastern Christian brothers. This is because some Latin Rite Catholics have tried to latinized our eastern brothers as well. So when they hear the word “convert,” they think of forgetting their traditions and be “Latin.” In other words, “convert” means “Latinization.” Of course, that is not what we mean. That is why we use a better word now: communion or unity. To be in communion means being in union with Rome and at the same time still having their distinct traditions. So Eastern Orthodox does not really “convert” but come fully in union with the Church. You can even read this in some of Ratzinger’s writings. There is one quote where Rad-Trads like to quote. But they fail to mention that Ratzinger is speaking of particular churches, or those which has a valid episcopate. So they do not really “convert” per se, but come into full communion.

Now, the word “convert,” for Kasper, means acknowledging the covenants God has made to His people. Now, if a Jew wants to become Catholic, he does not really “convert,” but simply “completes” his faith. And that is some sense, true. The Torah’s telos is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ did not abolish the Torah but fulfilled it.

Another word that has to be mentioned is “mission.” Mission to Kasper does not mean evangelize, but evangelizing to those who are not in the covenant with God. That should clear up some of the things he says. Now of course, I am not going to defend every statement of his, but his statements should be read in proper context. I suggest Cardinal Dulles’s article on Kasper’s theology.

 

[Damascene]

CARose,

CARose:

If a Jewish person has never had the opportunity to truly understand that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Messiah whom they await, and this Jewish person lives a good and holy life, praying according to their understanding of what God desires of them, do you truly believe they will perish in Hell? This is a heresy which has been condemned, as recently as I believe the 50’s with a prominent American Priest. I’m sorry I forget the details.

Specifically, the Holy Office declared that an implicit desire to join the Church was sufficient for salvation when joined with perfect Charity and supernatural Faith. With regards to Jews and others who are invincibly ignorant of Christ, the Catechism states:

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

EENS:

Yes, there is not salvation outside the Church, PERIOD.

Yes, only those baptized and joined visibly to the Church are a part of the Church.

No, invincible ignorance and desire for Baptism (let alone “implicit desire” for Baptism) do not suffice for salvation.

No, dying for the Faith outside of Baptism is not sufficient for salvation (c.f. St. John iii. 5 & Council of Florence).

God bless.

This is what Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for teaching and is not what the Church has tradionally taught.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

Ann Cheryl:

This is what Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for teaching and is not what the Church has tradionally taught.

That is not true. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated (which excommunication is highly suspect, considering it did not meet the requirements of Canon Law) for disobedience in not appearing in Rome upon summons. He was NOT excommunicated for his teaching about outside the Church. To support this clear conclusion (which is the case if you read the actual letter of excommunication), Paul VI rescinded this excommunication before Fr. Feeney’s death, and he did NOT have to recant his teaching about outside the Church no salvation. When the Church accepts a person back into Her fold that was a schismatic or heretic, She always requires a recantation of the heresy. This was not the case for Fr. Feeney. He merely had to recite the Athanasian Creed, which more clearly than any other Creed of the Church expresses the doctrine EENS most strongly.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

CatholicCrusade:

That is not true. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated (which excommunication is highly suspect, considering it did not meet the requirements of Canon Law) for disobedience in not appearing in Rome upon summons. He was NOT excommunicated for his teaching about outside the Church. To support this clear conclusion (which is the case if you read the actual letter of excommunication), Paul VI rescinded this excommunication before Fr. Feeney’s death, and he did NOT have to recant his teaching about outside the Church no salvation. When the Church accepts a person back into Her fold that was a schismatic or heretic, She always requires a recantation of the heresy. This was not the case for Fr. Feeney. He merely had to recite the Athanasian Creed, which more clearly than any other Creed of the Church expresses the doctrine EENS most strongly.

There is more to this than you care to acknowledge. Fr. Feeney’s teachings were condemned.
From Catholic Answeres
Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

That reconciliation is troubling.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1467
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=963
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2650
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=964
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

 

[JKirkLVNV]

CatholicCrusade:

That is not true. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated (which excommunication is highly suspect, considering it did not meet the requirements of Canon Law) for disobedience in not appearing in Rome upon summons. He was NOT excommunicated for his teaching about outside the Church. To support this clear conclusion (which is the case if you read the actual letter of excommunication), Paul VI rescinded this excommunication before Fr. Feeney’s death, and he did NOT have to recant his teaching about outside the Church no salvation. When the Church accepts a person back into Her fold that was a schismatic or heretic, She always requires a recantation of the heresy. This was not the case for Fr. Feeney. He merely had to recite the Athanasian Creed, which more clearly than any other Creed of the Church expresses the doctrine EENS most strongly.

Patently false. Some rigamarole supposedly took place in front of a notary, but neither the Pope nor any Bishop had anything to with any reconcilliation. He died excommunicate according to the Roman Catholic Church. Not according to his followers, of course, but they never seem able to produce any reputable document to substantiate their claim that he died in communion with the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ann Cheryl:

There is more to this than you care to acknowledge. Fr. Feeney’s teachings were condemned.
From Catholic Answeres
Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

That reconciliation is troubling.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1467
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=963
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2650
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=964
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

You are correct. It’s a song and dance to try and say otherwise.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello PreVatII,

God made an “eternal covenant” with the Israelites. Under the Old Testament Covenant, King David and Isaiah both proclaim Israelite salvation through God’s “Right Hand” (or God’s “arm”) whom we know to be Jesus Christ. If Abraham has fulfilled his side of the Old Testament Covenant contract God laid out for him, is not God obligated to fulfill His portion of the contract, which is eternal life through Jesus, without the need to fulfill the baptismal demands of the New Testament Covenant? Can God go back on His Old Covenant contractual Word?

Covenant: formal solemn, and binding agreement: a written agreement or promise under seal between two or more parties: the common law action to recover damages for breach of such a contract.

NAB DEU 30:19

“I call heaven and earth today to witness against you:** I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life,** then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him.”

NAB SAM 23:5

“Is not my house firm before God? He has made an eternal covenant with me, set forth in detail and secured. Will he not bring to fruitation all my salvation and my every desire?”

NAB MAT 26:64 **Jesus answered: **“It is you who say it. But I tell you this: Soon you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

NAB PSA 80:18

May your help be with the man of your right hand, with the son of man whom you yourself made strong.

N****AB PSA 118:15

The joyful shout of victory in the tents of the just: "The right hand of the LORD has struck with power: The right hand of the LORD is exalted; the right hand of the LORD has struck with power." I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. Though the LORD has indeed chastised me, yet he has not delivered me to death.

Open to me the gates of justice; I will enter them and give thanks to the LORD. This gate is the LORD’s; the just shall enter it. I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me and have been my savior. The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. …O LORD, grant salvation! O LORD, grant prosperity!

**NAB ISA 53:4 **(Isaiah to the Israelites.)

Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?..Y****et it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten
www.LOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[CatholicCrusade]

Ann Cheryl:

There is more to this than you care to acknowledge. Fr. Feeney’s teachings were condemned.
From Catholic Answeres
Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Some of his followers have tried to construe the reconciliation as a Vatican affirmation of Feeney’s theology, but, since the excommunication did not extend beyond a matter of obedience, the lifting of it did not extend any further.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

That reconciliation is troubling.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1467
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=963
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2650
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=964
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

I can post 5 websites here saying just the opposite… but let’s not waste time with that…

You have not addressed the illogical conclusion you have come to. Once a person is outside the Church, he is not let back in except if he rejects his heresy/schism. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN WITH FATHER FEENEY. Please address how illogical it would be to allow an unrecanted heretic back into the Church, let alone the scandal it would cause, if he were an heretic.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

CatholicCrusade:

I can post 5 websites here saying just the opposite… but let’s not waste time with that…

You have not addressed the illogical conclusion you have come to. Once a person is outside the Church, he is not let back in except if he rejects his heresy/schism. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN WITH FATHER FEENEY. Please address how illogical it would be to allow an unrecanted heretic back into the Church, let alone the scandal it would cause, if he were an heretic.

You ignore that one of the websites posted a letter from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office which issued the Protocol Suprema haec sacra, specifically condemning the doctrines of Fr. Leonard Feeney.

You ignore that the Church condemned Feeney’s narrow interputation.

You ingnore that his reconciliation with the Church was narrow and limited in scope. Remember you were the one who said that he was not excommunicated for his teachings but for his disobedience. Then it was his disobedience that was being addressed.

You ignore that the Church has always taught invincible ignorance.

You also ingnored this point “But even if he was sufficiently cognizant of the proceedings, another question remains, the answer to which is known only to God: Did he possess true contrition for his sins of disobedience? Without this, of course, his “reconciliation” is null and void.”