Thursday, May 24, 2012

Co-chairman of the Bilateral Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See is unlikely to permit the Society of St.Pius X to receive canonical status unless they state in public that Jews do not have to convert

The Co-chairman of the Bilateral Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See is unlikely to permit the Society of St.Pius X to receive canonical status unless they state in public that Jews do not have to convert.

This was the indication given back to them by Cardinal Kurt Koch President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, Vatican in his May 16 statement to the Catholic News Service and other media present at the University of St.Thomas Aquinas, Rome.

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, Catholic Culture and Catholic World News reported on May 11, 2009 that a Prominent rabbi urges the Pope to say Jews need not convert.Newspapers reported that he was speaking with the political and military support of Israel.

Pope Benedict and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone assumed the Chief Rabbinate in a front page article in the L'Osservatore Romano that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.Other cardinals repeated the same message.

Rabbi Rosen representing the Chief Rabbinate has stated that they would have no objections to the SSPX receiving canonical status as long as they accepted the position on Jews, acceptable to the Chief Rabbinate. He also said that it was not for the Jews to tell Catholics what they should believe in.However  they are telling Catholics what is acceptabgle Catholic beliefs for them and so there could be obstacles for the SSPX.The  Commission is a one way street. The Vatican cannot dictate to the Chief Rabbinate.

The CWN report said:
Prominent rabbi urges Pope to say Jews need not convert
CWN - May 11, 2009

The co-chairman of the Bilateral Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See is urging Pope Benedict to state publicly that Jews need not convert to Catholicism. Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, who addressed the Synod of Bishops last October, writes:

In the Second Vatican Council and the Nostra Aetate document, it was made clear that no efforts would be made by the Catholic Church to convert Jews. Rather, the Jewish people should continue the faith of its forefathers as expressed in the Bible and rabbinic literature. The Jewish people remain a people of God’s covenant, a people chosen by God to give the world the Bible. Put simply, the Catholic Church accepted the theological principle that Jews need not change their religion to merit redemption. I hope you will take the opportunity during your visit in Israel to reiterate this fact … I do hope now to get your help as a religious leader-- as well as the help of the entire free world-- to protect, defend and save Israel, the one and only sovereign state of the "People of the Book" from the hands of its enemies.

Lionel: No where in Vatican Council II or Nostra Aetate is it said that Jews do not have to convert. Instead Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God.

The text of Nostra Aetate (the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) does not appear to address the issue of Jewish conversion.

Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the Church, this sacred Council remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the New Covenant to the stock of Abraham.

The Church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginning of her faith and election is to be found in the patriarchs. Moses and the prophets. She professes that all Christ’s faithful, who as men of faith are sons of Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:7), are included in the same patriarch’s call and that the salvation of the Church is mystically prefigured in the exodus of God’s chosen people from the land of bondage On this account the Church cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament by way of that people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf. Rom. 11:17-24). The Church believes that Christ who is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles and made them one in himself (cf. Eph. 2:14-16).

Likewise, the Church keeps ever before her mind the words of the apostle Paul about his kinsmen: "they are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Rom. 9:4-5), the son of the virgin Mary. She is mindful, moreover, that the apostles, the pillars on which the Church stands, are of Jewish descent, as are many of those early disciples who proclaimed the Gospel of Christ to the world.

As holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God’s moment when it came (cf. Lk. 19:42) Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed The spreading of it (cf. Rom. 11:28). Even so, The apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God. for the sake of the patriarchs since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.2 Together with the prophets and that same apostle, the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3 :9 cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11-32)

Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage, this sacred Council wishes to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation. This can be obtained, especially, by way of biblical and theological enquiry and through friendly discussions.

Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. John 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion. lt. is true that the Church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture. Consequently, all must take care, lest in catechizing or in preaching the Word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.

Indeed the Church reproves every form of persecution against whomsoever it may be directed. Remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of antisemitism Ieveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.

The Church always held and continues to hold that Christ out of infinite love freely underwent suffering and death because of the sins of all men, so that all might attain salvation. It is the duty of the Church, therefore, in her preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s universal love and the source of all grace.

Lionel: The Rabbi does not mention that Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is also the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2877

Photos of the SSPX chapel Toronto,Canada from the blog The Third Order of Penance of St.Francis. 

Fr.Tim Finigan on The Hermeneutic of Continuity responds on extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 2

Fr.Tim Finigan
Lionel - I have indeed answered your question (several times now) but I have indicated that I do not accept the terms in which it is phrased. This is a perfectly reasonable procedure in logic. If you say to me "Do you know a single German who is sinless?" I am entitled to say "There is nobody apart from Our Lady who is sinless." That is a sufficient answer to the question without conceding any slur to Germans that might be implied in the way that the question is put.

Similarly if you ask me whether I know for certain of any individual on earth or Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, I am not simply going to answer "No", I am going to point out that we do not know for certain of any individual being saved. Do you accept this?

Lionel:
 If you mean you do not know (for certain?!) these cases then I can accept it.Since neither do I.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
There is now a further point that you seem determined to refuse to face. I said that the 1949 letter did not present desire or invincible ignorance as an "exception" to the nulla salus doctrine but as a proper understanding of it.

Lionel:
'Proper understanding of it'?

1.Is the proper understanding that we know people in Heaven or earth saved with the baptism of desire and this is what the Letter says?

2.It is not an exception but it is just mentioned as a possibility.

So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

3.The Letter was saying and so are you that there are no exceptions to the dogma that we know of ?

You simply reply that there cannot be exceptions to the doctrine.

Lionel:
Humanly we cannot and do know who in general is in Heaven except for the saints.We also know the saints are in Heaven in faith. We cannot see them

So there cannot be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
Do you accept that the magisterium of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church can teach us that a proper understanding of the nulla salus doctrine can allow the possibility of someone being saved through implicit desire or invincible ignorance?

Lionel:
A proper undestanding of implicit desire or invincible ignorance allows the possibility of someone being saved in this way.

A proper understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus does not allow the possibility of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire being an explicit exception.

The Magisterium (before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949) recognizes them as possibilities but does not say that they are exceptions.If you cannot name a single case how can they be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma?
-Lionel Andrades

"Praying for the SSPX to enrich the Church" The hermeneutic of continuity
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25543378&postID=9116883355064238435


Fr.Tim Finigan on The Hermeneutic of Continuity responds on extra eclesiam nulla salus

Dear Fr. Finigan,
Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

I asked you someone time back on this blog (The hermenuitic of continuity) if you knew any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, you did not answer.

Fr Tim Finigan :
Lionel, you keep on about the point that "we do not know any case on earth of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance etc" but as I have tried to point out before, we do not actually know for certain any case on earth of anyone saved, except those that the Church has canonised. Your assertion therefore has no force in this argument.

Lionel:
So you agree that we do not know anyone on earth or Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, Fr.Tim?

Fr.Tim Finigan:
If it is a question of your judgement or the judgement of the Holy Office in 1949, I will go with the Holy Office.

Lionel:
So will I.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
The letter said quite explicitly: "Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church."

Lionel:
Correct so the Letter is saying that there is an infallible statement. It also mentions ‘the dogma ‘in another paragraph.

Here is 'the dogma'. It does not mention any exceptions and says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
The letter later says: "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

Lionel:
 Yes in principle only. As a possibility only. Something known only to God. We cannot know these cases on earth. If someone is saved ‘by desire and longing’ it would be known only to God.So ‘the infallible teaching’ could not include these cases.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

Lionel:
We all agree that this is a possibility. It also does not contradict the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus .We know there are no known exceptions.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
This is not presented as an "exception" to the nulla salus doctrine but as a proper understanding of it.

Lionel:
It could never be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that it was then it would be an objective, factual error.

Fr.Tim Finigan:
It is you who are in error regarding the faith of the Church and I advise you to submit humbly to the teaching of the Magisterium so clearly expressed on may occasions, rather than to rely on your own private judgement in defiance of that teaching.

Lionel:
I affirm the Magisterium with respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as quoted above from the website Catholicism.org .

I accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it refers to ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible’ statement.

If the Letter indicates that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma I reject it since:

1. No other magisterial document makes this claim.

2. It is irrational to assume that there are these cases known on earth and so they could be exceptions to the dogma.

In Christ

Lionel

"Praying for the SSPX to enrich the Church" The hermeneutic of continuity
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25543378&postID=9116883355064238435

On the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus did Fr. Hans Kung mislead the pope ?

Did Fr. Hans Kung make the pope, at that time Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, believe that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were exceptions to the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Or was this just a general error held by all at that time ?

Pope Benedict approved the theological paper of the International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997 (and also the paper on Limbo). In it  they assumed that LG 16 (invincible ignorance etc) was an exception to the dogma which, as taught for centuries, stated  there was exclusive salvation in only the Church –and all needed to convert.

In one of Fr. Hans Kung's early books, after Vatican Council II, which were available at pontifical university and seminary libraries, Kung criticizes the infallibility of the pope. He meant LG 16 says non Catholics can be saved, and so there are exceptions to the dogma, thrice defined by the popes along with the bishops and cardinals.So this dogma was contradicted for him and also the dogma on the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra.

So it could mean that Pope Benedict XVI assumed that the Council made a mistake or the Council contradicts a defined dogma. This was also the understanding of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J. when he presided at the meetings of the ITC. They had the same opinion as Fr.Hans Kung that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma on the infallibility of the pope,but did not go public like Fr.Kung ?-Lionel Andrades