Author Topic: Church should not pursue conversion of Jews, says B16 (Read 8328 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2011, 10:44:18 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Believe it or not, the ecclesiological errors of ecuмenism haven't been defined either.

Do tell...

Do you mean the errors have not been defined, or the opposite truths have not been defined?

Perhaps the line from the Creed that says "ONE..." needs note of clarification?

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2011, 10:44:37 PM »

essentially the liberal, modernists will all fall back on "invincible ignorance" to explain why jews need not be converted immediately. So in other words, they will claim its better to let souls on Earth remain in "ignorance of the true faith" and this will benefit those souls more so than converting to Catholicism.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2011, 10:47:03 PM »

I see, so St. Alphonsus and all those Jesuits and Pius IX were all forerunners of Vatican II.

Sadly to say, I once actually believed this.

Deliveringit1 said:

Quote

they will claim its better to let souls on Earth remain in "ignorance of the true faith" and this will benefit those souls more so than converting to Catholicism.

Deliveringit1, have you ever heard anyone actually say this, that a soul would be better off left in ignorance and that someone would have a better chance to be saved without baptism? Just wondering.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2011, 10:48:23 PM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

essentially the liberal, modernists will all fall back on "invincible ignorance" to explain why jews need not be converted immediately. So in other words, they will claim its better to let souls on Earth remain in "ignorance of the true faith" and this will benefit those souls more so than converting to Catholicism.

Actually no, I don't think they would even argue that.

Because of the claim that the old Covenant is not revoked, because of the claim that "the Jєωιѕн reading of Scriptures" is a possible one, they are really saying Jews are right to believe what they believe until the end.

Caminus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2011, 11:13:31 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
Believe it or not, the ecclesiological errors of ecuмenism haven't been defined either.

Do tell...

Do you mean the errors have not been defined, or the opposite truths have not been defined?

Perhaps the line from the Creed that says "ONE..." needs note of clarification?

I mean the nature of the Church has not been dogmatically defined. Obviously, the doctrine is found within tradition and taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, but it has not been defined, strictly speaking, in order to make its denial heresy strictly speaking against divine and catholic faith. I think it is heretical in the sense that it denies a truth of divine revelation, but that is my opinion. A truth could be revealed while not yet defined by the Church as such.

You mention that the Creed states the Church is "One" but in what sense is it one, what is the nature of this unity? We all know and hold to the Catholic doctrine relating to this note while the new theologians deny it.

Many truths we hold as part of the Catholic faith have not been dogmatically defined, but it would be just as deadly to deny any of them.

Oremus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2011, 06:55:06 AM »

On another forum, someone brought up Romans 11:25-26 as a possible reason for why Benedict XVI said what he said. In fact, all of Romans 11 seems to back it up.

Now, I'm not trying to start an argument or play devil's advocate, but I'm wondering what you all think about this.

Personally, I don't know what to make of it. At first glimpse, it sounds like these verses were meant for something else. But I can also see how someone could misinterpret them.

Jehanne · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2011, 07:27:24 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
John XXII publicly shared his private heretical opinion and was still Pope.

It had not been defined yet, genius :)

Read up on these things BEFORE responding. Thanks.

True, but it was part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is why there was a movement to declare the Pope to be a heretic.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:04:36 AM »

If I say this is heresy, does that make me a sede?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:33:02 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Ratzinger was on some kind of watch list of those suspected of heresy by the Holy Office under Pius XII.

Is there any citation or copy of this?

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:44:14 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: Raoul76
Ratzinger was on some kind of watch list of those suspected of heresy by the Holy Office under Pius XII.

Is there any citation or copy of this?

I don't know if this is true, but the man Joseph Ratzinger was HIGHLY influenced by many men whose writings and philosophy were deemed heresy. Lately, he has been issuing many statements that, in light of Tradition, are heretical.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:47:34 AM »

We also know this:

Young Professor Ratzinger, then just 30 years old, took part in the Council from the inside, aligned with the most radical progressive theologians (the Rahners, de Lubacs, Congars, etc.), those forming the "Rhone Alliance." In his memoirs he seeks to downplay his participation in this "Sodalitium." He writes that "the theological and ecclesial drama of those years [does not] belong in these memoirs".

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:12:19 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

It had not been defined yet, genius :)

So if something has not been dogmatically defined, there can be no heresy and the opinion is valid. Therefore BXVI can spout whatever he'd like unless it directly and unambiguously contradicts a defined dogma, and still be Pope.

Thanks for clarifying, genius!

Caminus · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:23:29 AM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

If I say this is heresy, does that make me a sede?

No.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:38:35 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

It had not been defined yet, genius :)

So if something has not been dogmatically defined, there can be no heresy and the opinion is valid...

That does not necessarily follow, but I do not expect you to admit your take on J22 is uninformed/incorrect.

Again, learn what actually happened in J22's case; then comment.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:52:27 PM »

Already know what happened. Obviously you must have read the revised Sede version complete with absurd hair splitting explanation.