While it is right to express outrage over the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews’ recently published document onNostra Aetate, the only responsible response must go well beyond the document in question to include the source of the very errors that inform it.
On December 10th – the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews published a 10,000 word treatise on Nostra Aetate – the Second Vatican Council document on the Church’s relation to non-Christians.
Many of my colleagues in Catholic media are outraged by this document. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am pleased to see their outrage. I am even more pleased to see it being shared by those who are just now having their eyes opened to this extent of this crisis.
And yet, I am pleased to see this document published.
Simply put, because it makes perfectly plain a point that I, and others, have been making for some time: Nostra Aetate contains grave error.
Nostra Aetatedoes not state that Judaism is the ordinary means of salvation.
Nostra Aetate does not state that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Nostra Aetate does not state that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Nostra Aetate does not contradict Ad Gente 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.This would also include the Jews.Vox Cantoris on his blog recently affirmed this but Louie Verrecchio will not.
It does not state that we must interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism, as does the Vatican Curia and Louie Verecchio.
I’ve linked two important articles below, both originally written in March, that demonstrate as much; meticulously and clearly. In support of this argument, these articles offers excerpts taken from a speech given by Cardinal Kurt Koch – the President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
Lionel :The articles show that the writer still is not aware of his Cushingism theology, which is heretical and irrational.The fault is not there with Nostra Aetate or Vatican Council II.Louie Verrecchio refuses to ask questions nor is he able to correct me in any communication.
The reaction to these articles from those who are unwilling to condemn the Council sometimes went as follows:
Sure, I can see how certain churchmen, like Cardinal Koch, have used Nostra Aetate to teach heresy with respect to the Jews, but I don’t agree that this is what the Council really meant…
Lionel:Since there are two theologies with which you can interpret Vatican Council II. Louie is using the irrational one. It is the one used by the liberal rabbis and the Vatican Curia.Why is a traditionalist choosing an irrational theology.
With Cushingism there is a break with the Syllabus of Errors. There is a break with the traditional ecclesiologu and traditional ecumenism.
While this argument was weak half a year ago, today it is entirely unsustainable. You see, what this most recent document from the Pontifical Commission provides is nothing less than the “official” meaning of Nostra Aetate’s treatment of the Jews.
Lionel:Agreed. This is the official position.
Today, there can no longer be any question whatsoever as to what the Council is teaching; much less is there any question as to how that teaching is to be applied in the life of the Church if accepted.
Lionel:For those of us who interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Feeneyism, which is rational and traditional, there is definely a break with the way the Vatican Curia and the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II ( with Cushingism).
I have quoted Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson, Fr. S.Visintin, the Dean of Theology at the University of St.Anselm, Rome and John Martignoni the U.S apologist saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So many priests in Rome have said there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Why doesn't Louie comment on this?
In any case, the punchline to this latest contribution to the post-conciliar apostasy in Rome can be summed up as follows:
Catholics are henceforth encouraged to consign the Jews to eternal death. I’ll say that again just in case you missed it:
Catholics are henceforth encouraged to consign the Jews to eternal death. In other words, let them rot in Hell.
Of course, the Captains of the church-of-man that emerged following the so-called “New Pentecost” of Vatican II don’t use those precise words, but make no mistake, that is exactly what they are saying.
The document states:
“It is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people.”
It is also a sensitive matter for SSPX priests and lay supporters. They do not want to say that Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology, since there are no known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla slaus.
It is sensitive since 1) they do not want to come under the anti-Semitism and other new fascist laws and 2) they do not want to say that they were wrong all along about Vatican Council II.
Please allow me to translate: The Jews are uneasy about the Church’s mission because rejecting Jesus Christ, well… this goes to the very heart of what it means to be a Jew. If we invite them to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” as St. Peter did on the day of Pentecost, we may as well ask them to become a new creation.
Also a new nation and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel does not want this.
But isn’t that what Baptism does for everyone? Why is it OK to bring an individual heathen, or Buddhist, or Muslim to new life in Christ, but not the Jews?
Well, according to the Unholy See, they’re different. Before we get to how they’re different, the document then states:
“This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance.”
Notice what is being done here: The “fundamental importance” of the Church’s “universal mission” is being reduced to an esoteric concept that is valid only for Christians. In other words, the document speaks of “universal mission” in one breath, while deeming it less-than-universal in the next. This is classic conciliar contradiction.
They are also really saying that we got rid of that dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , for you, and you have no clue to it.So now there is no theology which says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.There is salvation in Jesus only. The Church is omitted. So what is the point in doing mission any more, like in the past, to invite people into the Church ?. Every one who is saved , even if they are Jews, are saved through Jesus.This is the understanding with the new theology. This is Cushingism. This is the new theology of Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus. This was the understanding of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. There is a hermeneutic of rupture with the past, with the use of Cushingism. This is magisterial.
The document goes on:
“The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews.”
Did you get that?
This is statement based on the new theology.The new theology says there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the loop hole.
Christ the King sent His disciples forth to baptize all nations. St. Peter, who was there that day, understood this to mean the Jews as well as much as anyone else.
Yes but if you use Cushingism, then it means there are exceptions. Not every one needs to be baptised with water in the Catholic Church.
The apostates running the show in Rome today, however, say, “No, we have no evangelizing mission to the Jews!”
A true Catholic can not fail to recognize that this is tantamount saying the Jews can go to hEll for all we care!
According to newchurch, by contrast, we have no mission to the Jews because their salvation is secure in spite of their rejection of Jesus Christ!
The document states:
“From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.”
First, note the qualifier, from the Christian confession…
When you use Cushingism as a theology, there is a new ecumenism. Now the Church is Cristocentric. It is not with an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology. From here begins a false ecumenism.
This is an obvious attempt to suggest that there are more than one “confessions” or sets of belief that are valid. The Christian confession, on the one hand, that proclaims Jesus Christ as the solitary way of salvation, and the Jewish confession that rejects Him entirely.
The Christian profession which proclaims Jesus Christ as the solitary way of salvation ( without the necessity of the Catholic Church!) Louie Verrechio's concept of salvation is Cushingite, like the popes and Vatican cardinals.
As for the consequences of that rejection?
To the men of newchurch, there are none. They cannot possibly say so any more plainly. I’ll repeat it in case you missed it:
“It does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ…”
Yes since the Church is now Christocentric and so all Jews who are saved are saved through Jesus. This is the magisterial understanding with Cushingism.
By contrast, Jesus Christ, apart from whom no one is included in “God’s salvation” – that’s Catholicism 101 – said, He who rejects me rejects God. And yet the Unholy See is insisting that this “does not in any way follow?”
This is a natural consequence of Cushingism, a 'new church' which is Christocentric and not 'Church-centred'.
With Feeneyism every one needs to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation, since there cannot be any known exceptions and the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known to us to be exceptions or relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation.So with Feeneyism the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has not changed.
This latest abomination from Rome is saying that Jesus Christ is optional for salvation.
If there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then it means some people are saved without baptism in the Catholic Church.
How can there be some people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church ? How could any one know of these cases? How is it possible to see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water ? How can we say that any particular person will be saved without the baptism of water and so will contradict the dogma on salvation? Yet this was all assumed in the Boston Case.The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing accepted this reality and this gave birth to a new theology.The error was then placed in Vatican Council II while both groups ( Rome and Boston) maintained the excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney right through Vatican Council II.
This is either the truth, or it’s wholesale apostasy. If it’s the truth, then Our Blessed Lord is a liar, His first Vicar, St. Peter, is a damned fool, and so are all of the Saints and Doctors of the Church who ever lived! We can’t have it both ways.
Exactly! All those saints and popes were Feeneyites. They did not say the baptism of desire etc was linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Even if they accepted the baptism of desire etc they did not infer that these cases were explicit, objectively see in personal cases, to be formal exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.
The link was made by liberal theologians and Rome accepted.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston assumes the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) is an exception to the dogma. In other words it is explicit to be an exception or relevant to the dogma.They then placed this nonsense in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
So, in which will you believe – that this abominable document from Rome represents a total repudiation of the Christian faith, or that Jesus Christ is a liar? It’s one or the other.
It is a repudiation of the Catholic Faith. The 'Christian faith' does not have a common theology for us Feeneyites.
It’s not a very difficult choice, and not just for so-called “traditionalists” – aka Catholics.
Presumably, it’s not a difficult choice for Michael Voris, or Jimmy Akin, or Karl Keating, or anyone else who fashions themselves a “conservative” Catholic.
All three are using Cushingism as a theology. Michael Voris has said other religions are false religions and he also has said every one does not need to be a card carrying members of the Church.
He will not affirm Feeneyism. I guess for him too, it is 'a delicate issue', as it is for those who issued this Vatican Document on the Jews.
The difficult part, at least for many of them, is going to be coming to grips with what all of this really means.
They could begin by identify the theology they are using. This is a doctrinal issue.
I was speaking the other day with my good friend Damian Goddard, and we came to the conclusion that while our conservative friends know that something is wrong in the Church; in fact, they talk about it often, they’ll only go so far in addressing the underlying malady.
They do not know the precise cause.It is Cushingism. Change the theology and the Church changes.
Unfortunately even the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA, traditionalists, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary 1 are interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.If they did not then there position with the Jewish Left becomes 'delicate'.
At the new SSPX seminary under construction the theology to be used will be Cushingism. It is politically acceptable.
In other words, they’ll admit that the Church has headache, but they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that the Body of Christ on earth has something more akin to cancer.
In the present case, remember what we’re talking about here: This document recently published by the Pontifical Commission for Relations with the Jews isn’t the product of just another crackpot cardinal spouting off with a bunch happy homespun heterodoxy.
No; it’s much more than that. This document is nothing less than the “official” teaching of Vatican Council II in action.
Yes Vatican Council II according to Cushingism
It is not Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism.
Vatican Council II according to Cushingism must be rejected. It is heretical.We cannot see people in Heaven saved outside the Church and nor can we say any particular person today will be saved outside the Church.
This being the case, while it is right to express outrage at this terrible affront to Our Blessed Lord and our Holy Catholic faith, the only responsible response must go beyond the document in question itself to include the errors of Vatican II that inform it.
Vatican Council II with Cushingism. In which LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) refers to visible instead of visible cases.
In which LG 8 ( saved with elements of sanctification and truth) refer to seen in the flesh explicit cases instead of hypothetical cases.
In which UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) refers to known salvation outside the Church instead of unknown salvation.
In which AG 11 ( being saved with the seeds of the Wod) refers to the 'visible-dead',people who are now saved with the 'seeds of the Word' and who are outside the Church. They are visible and known in particular cases and so they are exceptions to the old ecclesiology, the one associated originally with the Traditional Latin Mass. Etc. Etc.
It will be interesting to see how many of those with a voice in Catholic media have the wherewithal to stand up and be counted for Christ in the aftermath of this attack, knowing as I do firsthand, that this side of Heaven, there is a price to be paid for doing so.
Lionel:So many times in the past I have writted about Cushingism and Feeneyism as a theology and how the interpretation of Vatican Council II dramatically changes when Feeneyism replaces Cushingism. When will Louie Verrechio discuss this ?
Instead Nostra Aetate 4 says the Church is the new people of God and Louie Verrecchio has never commented on this.
The Vatican Document wrongly says there is a new theology in Nostra Aetate 4 even when there is no such text in NA 4. No comment from the traditionalists!