Friday, October 30, 2015

Jewish Left rabbis interpret Vatican Council II with the Baltimore Catechism error : factually wrong

Related image
Jewish Left rabbis, who do not represent all rabbis, say Vatican Council II has changed the Church's teachings  on Jews.This is not true. Since Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation.(AG 7, LG 14). Vatican Council II also says Catholics are the new people of God, they are the Chosen People ( Nostra Aetate 4). The leftist rabbis, without faith and baptism are on the way to Hell. This is Vatican Council II.
Related image
 The Jews of today have rejected the Jewish Messiah, who made an eternal covenant, for all who believe in Him and accept him in the Catholic Church, (Dominus Iesus 20) the only Church He founded.
The liberal rabbis who have rejected the Messiah and his teachings are any way going to Hell for violating the laws of Moses, since like the ADL and the Zionists ,they support abortion, homosexuality and other things pro-Satan. Those who do this cannot have as their God, like Catholics, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh.
Related image
They have also been supporting lies about Vatican Council II, in the mainstream media which they control, by interpreting LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II, as referring to explicit instead of implicit cases, visible instead of invisible persons, as being concrete instead of hypothetical.the confusion is also there on the Vatican website.1
It is with this irrationality that they interpret Vatican Council II and then say Vatican Council II has changed the Church's teachings on the Jews.It is a fact of life that they do not know anyone saved without 'faith and baptism' in 2015. So there cannot be any exception in Vatican Council II, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller like the rabbis, have been interpreting  magisterial documents, including Vatican Council II, with the error from the Baltimore Catechism.2
The baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not known in personal cases, so they should not have been placed in the Baltimore Catechism , as exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
They are hypothetical, theoretical cases and according to the dogmatic teaching would be followed by the baptism of water.
Related image
Similarly they were not exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Holy Office (1949) made an 
error.There were no known cases, past or present, who could be exceptions, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
 Related image
Similarly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council Ii interpreted with LG 16 etc being explicit instead of implicit. This is a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II since it is a break with the dogma defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching'. The Magisterium accepted  the heretical version of Vatican Council II, the pro-Jewish Left version, and excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre  as they  the same, with Fr. Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades







Orthodox nationalist rabbis lead a protest against rumors that Israel will transfer the site of King David's tomb and Jesus' Last Supper to the Vatican.







1.
From the Vatican website:


COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

“Nostra Aetate”, Forty Years After Vatican II.
Present & Future Perspectives

Conference of the Holy See Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry,
Rome, October 27, 2005






Rabbi David Rosen
The late Pope John Paul II described the Declaration “Nostra Aetate” that emanated from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as “an expression of Faith” and “an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as a word of Divine Wisdom”.
(Lionel:  Nostra Aetate does not say that Jews do not need to convert. This is the ADL's political position on Nostra Aetate )
Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry has described the impact of Nostra Aetate as “an astonishing transformation”. Indeed in relation to the Jewish People the implications were truly revolutionary in the most positive sense of the word. With the promulgation of this declaration, a people – formerly viewed at best as a fossil but more often as cursed and condemned to wander and suffer – was now officially portrayed as beloved by God and somehow very much still part of the Divine plan for humankind.
(Lionel: Cardinal Kaspar interprets LG 16 etc as being explicit instead of implicit. So Vatican Council II would be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) )
In his visit to the Rome synagogue in 1986, Pope John Paul II referred to the Jewish people as “the beloved elder brothers of the Church”. He developed this idea with his own notable formulation of the essential message of Nostra Aetate. One of the occasions on which I was privileged to meet with John Paul II was in Assisi in January 1993 on the occasion of the gathering he had convened for prayer for peace in the Balkans. In receiving me and my colleague, he declared “I have said, you (the Jewish People) are the beloved elder brother of the Church of the original Covenant never broken and never to be broken”.
(Lionel: He is contradicted by Vatican Council II which indicates there is a new and everlasting covenant made by Jesus with the new  people of God (NA 4) )
This phrase does not just reflect a transformation in attitude and teaching towards the Jews; it has profound implications for the Church in terms of its own theology. 
(Lionel: The old ecclesiology, the old theology has not changed. Since there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the old ecclesiology). 
Indeed Pope Benedict XVI himself has said that the Church has not yet fully discovered all the profound implications of Nostra Aetate. Part of the reason for this lies in the very novelty of the Declaration. Cardinal Augustin Bea at the time of the declaration’s promulgation, emphasized its ground-breaking nature. Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, former President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry, elaborated on this idea further affirming that never before had such “a systematic, positive, comprehensive, careful and daring presentation on Jews and Judaism been made in the Church by a Pope or a Council”.
Moreover Catholic theologians such as Michel Remaud have noted that “of all the documents promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, that on the Jews is the only one which contains no reference whatsoever to any of the Church’s teachings – patristic, conciliar or pontifical.” 
(Lionel: The references are there in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14. Also in Nostra Aetate 4)
There are, therefore, in paragraph 4 of Nostra Aetate and in the Holy See’s 1975 “Guidelines and Suggestions on the implementation of Nostra Aetate”, innovative elements and hence radical changes. As Prof. Father John Pawlikowski has put it, in returning to Romans 9-11 as its exclusive scriptural source, Nostra Aetate in fact said that “the Church is now taking up where Paul left off in his insistence that Jews remain part of the Covenant after the Resurrection despite the theological ambiguity involved.” This is not to ignore the fact that the text itself in its final version after much argument and many compromises, fell disappointingly short of the originally proposed text, which we now know was the hope and intention of Pope John XXIII.
As has also been pointed out frequently, the implications of Nostra Aetate can only be properly understood in the light of subsequent teaching of the Magisterium – in particular, the aforementioned ‘Guidelines’; the 1985 Notes on the correct way to present Jews and Judaism; the statements of Pope Paul VI and in particular the extensive body of Pope John Paul II’s declarations on this subject, as well as those of various Episcopal conferences. 
(Lionel: They interpret Vatican Council II with the error from the Baltimore Catechism)
This dynamic had sought to preclude any negative interpretations which might otherwise have been possible in expounding the text of Nostra Aetate itself. Thus as Dr. Eugene Fisher has pointed out, in Pope John Paul II’s articulation concerning God’s Covenant with the Jewish People to which I referred above; and in calling for a joint mission of witness to the Name of One God “by Jews and Christians in and for the world”, he sought to resolve the question of abrogation/supercession in favor of ‘mutual esteem’ and cast into an entirely new framework the ancient question of proselytism/conversion. 
(Lionel: Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) indicate all Jews are on the way to Hell. They need to convert to avoid the fires of Hell. This is also Scriptural and dogmatic. Vatican Council II affirms it).
Indeed a number of Cardinals and Bishops Conferences have categorically rejected the need for “a mission to the Jews”. For example the U.S. Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs declared in its Reflections on Covenant and Mission (August 2002) that the distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are to truly be as Pope John Paul II envisioned, “a blessing to one another”.
(Lionel: However the text of Vatican Council II says all Jews and other non Catholics, need to convert for salvation. This has been the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church).
In keeping with Pope John Paul II’s statements, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry, stated in an address at Boston College, in November 2002, “This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us came to its historical completion in Jesus Christ”.
(Lionel: He is contradicting Vatican Council II and a whole body of Church-teaching. ).
It seems to me that the 2001 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled, ‘The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible’, published under the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s imprimatur and with his introduction, is very much in keeping with this spirit, when it declares that “the Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain …. Like them we too live in expectation.”
(Lionel: Yes we await the Second Coming of Jesus.They have rejected the First Coming of Jesus and do not recognise Him as the Messiah.This needs to be clarified.)
However the position relinquishing the invitation for conversion to Christianity to Jews has come in for strong criticism and arguably there is no other issue that remains a bone of theological contention within the Church in relation the Jewish People as this matter.
(Lionel: He recognises that the Church still teaches that Jews need to convert. Outside the Church there is no salvation).
This was already evidenced in the treatment of the working document of 1969 prepared by a special committee for the Holy See’s office for Catholic-Jewish relations entitled “Reflections and Suggestions for the Application of the Directives of Nostra Aetate”. This document declared that as far as Christian relations with Jews are concerned, “all intent of proselytizing and conversion is excluded”. Yet the Guidelines that were promulgated in 1975 by the newly established Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry on the basis of the working document, did not include this explicit directive, though the Commission’s President, Cardinal Willebrands, did echo this view on a number of occasions.
(Lionel: The document contradicts Vatican Council II)
  Similarly, at the significant Jewish-Catholic International Liaison Committee meeting in Venice in 1978, Professor Tommaso Frederici presented his study outline on The Mission and Witness of the Church in which he called for a formal renunciation of evangelical outreach to Jews. While Jewish organizations translated the text from Italian and published in its original full form, in the Holy See’s official published version of Frederici’s lecture issued a few years later, this call had been substantially qualified. Evidently even though the Church has repudiated proselytizaton and no longer allocates material resources for the conversion of the Jews, the theological position of the Church still awaits full clarification from the Holy See.
(Lionel: There can be no change in the theological position of the Church since there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the old ecclesiology.)
Some Catholic scholars have suggested that the very reason that there has not been more theological reflection exploring the meaning and power of Nostra Aetate on the part of the Church, is precisely because the document obliges Christian theologians to rethink their Christology and ecclesiology in keeping with the idea of God’s abiding covenant with the Jews.
(Lionel : This would be a rejection of the missionary passages in Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14) )
 Indeed there are some recent signs not only of a reluctance to do so, but even of attempts to minimize this very idea and the significance of Nostra Aetate itself. For example in May 2003 an interview with an Italian theologian (Illana Morelli) was published by the Zenit News Service expressing the position that as Nostra Aetate is a pastoral document it has no doctrinal authority and that to attribute such to it would be “greatly ingenuous” and a “historical error”.
This attitude echoes positions that I hear from some Christian theologians and clergy in the Holy Land and the Arab world, who claim that Nostra Aetate was nothing less than a contextual product of European Christian guilt over the Shoah and thus its reappraisal of Jews and Judaism are not really relevant for them.
(Lionel: Vatican Council II ( Nostra Aetate ) is traditional).
Moreover Cardinal Avery Dulles, who criticized the aforementioned USCCB Reflections on Covenant and Mission, stated at the Nostra Aetate 40th anniversary conference in Washington last March that it is “an open question whether the Old Covenant remains in force today” and has opined that it is still a Catholic duty to invite Jews to receive the Christian faith (his text has recently been printed in the publication “First Things”)
(Lionel: His statement is based on Vatican Council II )
As an outside observer, it would appear to me that these comments categorically contradict the late Pope John Paul II’s clearly articulated teachings on the subject, as well as those of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry and several statements of leading Bishops’ Conferences.
(Lionel :  Pope John Paul II in Dominus Iesus 20 said all need to convert into the Church.The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.)
  I must confess to some disappointment that there no refutation, distancing, or at least clarification on this from the Church authorities in Rome.
It appears to me that there is a pressing need for a clear reaffirmation of the Magisterium in this regard. Without such, there will remain not only an unhealthy ambiguity in our relationship, but we will continue to have to deal with unfortunate and unnecessary tensions regarding motives, including the presence and role of specific personalities in the Church whose background is particularly pertinent to this relationship.
In many parts of the world the internalization at all levels within the Church of the essence of Nostra Aetate and its positive teaching regarding Jews and Judaism is a great success story. This of course is especially the case where Catholic communities live alongside vibrant Jewish communities and interact positively with them – the United States of America is the most striking example of this. However there are places in the world where my travels take me, where I find that even the content of Nostra Aetate itself is often unknown to Catholic leaders let alone the rank and file.
(Lionel: We can interact positively with the Jews, our 'elder brethren' by still affirming Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Long before Vatican Council II Jesus asked us to love all people, serve them and help them.He would want us to have good relations with every one while expressing the truth of our Faith)
One of the most important relevant instructions to bishops regarding Christian-Jewish relations was issued last year by the Holy See’s Congregation for Bishops, in its Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004, p.31, no. 19): “The Second Vatican Council recalls the spiritual bond uniting the people of the New Testament with the descendants of Abraham. By virtue of this bond, the Jewish People have a special place in the Church’s regard for members of non-Christian religions: 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).
(Lionel: Yes this is our common heritage. However Catholics accept the Promised Messiah while the present day rabbis reject Him.So there are important differences in the two religions. For Catholics their Faith is a continuation of the Jewish religion.)
The Bishop should promote among Christians an attitude of respect towards these our ‘elder brothers’, so as to combat the risk of anti-Semitism, and he should be vigilant that sacred ministers receive an adequate formation regarding the Jewish religion and its relation to Christianity.”
I sincerely congratulate the Holy See’s Congregation for Bishops for this important directive and pray that it will be full implemented. Yet to the best of my knowledge Nostra Aetate and the subsequent relevant teachings of the Magisterium on Jews, Judaism and Israel are still not even a required component of the curriculum for the formation of priests throughout the Catholic world. Ensuring that the fruits of Nostra Aetate are more firmly embedded in the formal fabric of the Church seems to me to be a principle challenge ahead for the Church. 
(Lionel: The formation of priests and the teaching of Catechism presently meets the Jewish left standards. Since it is based on an irrational interpretation of magisterial documents, which produce a non traditional and irrational concluion. This can be corrected of course but the Jewish Left would object as they objected to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.) 
All this is of course in no way to minimize the achievements of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry and the important documents it has produced. In response to the establishment of this Commission, the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Relations (IJCIC) was established to represent World Jewry to the Holy See and it is currently my privilege to be President of this body. These two bodies constitute the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee to which I have referred and which has produced some dozen important joint statements on a wide spectrum of contemporary challenges reflecting what Nostra Aetate describes as our “shared patrimony”, without in any way minimizing regard and respect for the profound differences that make us two separate faith communities. This collaboration is the blessed and impressive fruit of Nostra Aetate.
However inevitably in the same way as the sociological context has determined the degree to which the fruits of Nostra Aetate have been internalized in the Catholic world; the extent to which Jewish communities have understood and responded to the changes has also varied according to the degree to which those communities function in living engagement with Catholic neighbors. Thus we have seen throughout the majority of the American Jewish community a sea change in attitudes towards the Catholic Church, to the point where arguably no other religious community is viewed by U.S. Jewry as more important and empathic to its well being. Indeed in terms of joint programming, publications and centers for Christian-Jewish studies – the Catholic-Jewish partnership in the US is unparalleled. 
(Lionel: This is a reference to the Jewish Left cooperation. It differs with other Jewish communities. Then there are also Messianic Jews like Jews for Jesus who do not share the same understanding of Jewish- Catholic relations as those of Rabbis Rosen  and other liberal rabbis).
The American Jewish Committee has been privileged to have been able to play a key role in this dialog and cooperation across the country – in particular the Catholic/Jewish Educational Enrichment Program in Catholic and Jewish schools that the AJC initiated from East to West Coasts. Comparable programs are hardly to be found and often not even feasible elsewhere in the Jewish world.
The charge of Nostra Aetate and its subsequent teaching are of course not just concerned with removing past prejudice and eliminating incorrect information about each other. The 1975 Guidelines on Nostra Aetate emphasize the importance for Catholics of understanding Jews as we understand ourselves.
(Lionel:  It is also important for the Jewish Left to accept Catholics as they understand  Vatican Council II in agreement with Sacred Tradition).
  Indeed understanding the other as he/she sees him/herself is an essential prerequisite for true mutual respect. Yet this is not always an easy task, especially as we tend to interpret concepts through our own religious and cultural lenses, which may be seen and understood very differently by the other. A concept that many Christians have had difficulty in fully comprehending is the centrality of the State of Israel for contemporary Jewish identity. This centrality is not in conflict with the Jewish Biblical and Rabbinic vision of universalism – on the contrary. It is by striving to live as a people in keeping with God’s Word and Will , ideally as the Bible indicates in the Land of our Forefathers, that we are called to testify to such possibilities, mutatis mutandis, for all peoples. Certainly Judaism teaches that wherever the Jewish people resides, it testifies to the Divine presence that has preserved it against all odds. But the Biblical ideal is clearly to communicate the Divine universal values to the world, while still striving to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” living independently in the Biblically mandated land itself.
I believe that the Catholic Church, especially under Pope John Paul II, came to a significant understanding of this centrality of the State of Israel for Jewry and of course Pope Benedict XVI when he was President of the Pontifical Council for Doctrine of the Faith played a key role in this process...

__________________________

2.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HERESY
(from the Baltimore Catechism to Vatican Council II)

ERROR N.1
BALTIMORE CATECHISM
B.
Related image321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?
An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation. - Baptism. Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism
A.
315. What is Baptism?
Baptism is the sacrament that gives our souls the new life of sanctifying grace by which we become children of God and heirs of heaven.
Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

316. What sins does Baptism take away?

Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due to them, if the person baptized be guilty of any actual sins and truly sorry for them.
Get up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

317. What are the effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism?

The effects of the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism are that we become members of the Church, subject to its laws, and capable of receiving other sacraments.

320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?

Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41) - Baptism.Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism
ERROR N.2
Related image
CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X
A.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

B
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. -Catechism of Pope Pius X, Rome 1905


ERROR N.3

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
A
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.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

B
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.

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.

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.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire...

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct...

Related imageERROR N.4
VATICAN COUNCIL II
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

A
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
B
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II



Related image
Cardinal Kaspar changed ecclesiology assuming B is an exception to A : he used an irrational model to interpret Vatican Council II

Cardinal Muller has changed doctrine, supports the development of heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/cardinal-muller-has-changed-doctrine.html

Associated Press blacks out information on magisterial heresy : AP reports on Vatican Council II were based on a factual error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/associated-press-blacks-out-information.html
_______________________
_______________________

No comments: