Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on March 31, 2011, 03:08:58 PM
-
http://www.cfnews.org/b16-significantsilence.htm
Common Mission and “Significant Silence”
Pope Benedict’s latest statements on Jews and Conversion
By John Vennari
The overall thrust of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict’s writings over the years is that Catholics should not necessarily try to convert Jews, but rather, Jews and Christian should be a common witness “to the one God, Who cannot be adored apart from the unity of love of God and neighbor, they should open the door into the world for this God…”
“Church Should Not Pursue Conversion of Jews, Pope Says”. This was the headline of a recent National Catholic Reporter story on the Pope’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth Part II: Holy Week. [1]
The Pope’s latest tome, which is the sequel to his earlier work Jesus of Nazareth Part I, has been hailed by the Vatican’s Cardinal Marc Ouellet as “an extraordinarily ecuмenical book” [2] This is not surprising, as Pope Benedict is primarily an ecuмenical theologian whose thought regarding members of non-Catholic religions is structured according to the new orientation of Vatican II.
Pope Benedict’s latest statements concerning the Jews are consistent with what appears in his books over the years, four of which we will spotlight, wherein he claims that today’s Jews and Christians share a “common mission” to bring God to the world.
His comments are consistent with his acts as Pope, such as changing the Old Liturgy’s Good Friday Prayer for the conversion of the Jews because it is “offensive to them”, and in his visiting three ѕуηαgσgυєs in the past six years.
His statements are consistent with what Thomistic theologian Father Edward Hanahoe warned was an inherent weakness in ecuмenical theologians. In 1962, Father Hanahoe explained that the writings of ecuмenical theologians often suffer from “significant silence” on key points of Catholic doctrine that interfere with their ecuмenical designs. [3]
Benedict’s statements are consistent with what is implicit in the new teachings of Vatican II, made explicit by Pope John Paul II, and promoted in a 1985 Vatican docuмent about the Jews.
Benedict’s words are also in line with the outcome of a little-known secret meeting between Jews and Vatican envoy Father Yves Congar during Vatican II, in which the Jews asked to be “completely rehabilitated” and “considered as brothers, partners in equal dignity,” even though Jews would maintain their rejection of Christ. As a result of this meeting, says Jєωιѕн writer Lazare Landau, “the Council granted our wishes.”
All of these points will be explained as we proceed.
The “Time of the Gentiles”
Pope Benedict’s words on the conversion of the Jews are contained in the book’s Chapter 2, “Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse”. It is his commentary on Our Lord’s prediction of the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world, as recorded in Matthew 23-24 and Mark 13.
It is first necessary to take a brief look at Benedict’s statement regarding the “time of the Gentiles” to understand his position on the conversion of the Jews.
Benedict speaks of the “Time of the Gentiles” as a key concept for understanding the Church’s relationship with the Jews, and places great emphasis on Our Lord’s words: “And the Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. (Matt. 24:14), and “The gospel must be first preached to all nations.” (Mark 13:10).
This span between Our Lord’s death and the preaching of the Gospel to the entire world, Benedict notes, will be followed by the conversion of Jews at the end of time. Here, he quotes St. Paul, “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved.”
Stating his belief that the early Church “was unable to access the chronological duration of these Times of the Gentiles”, he says there was the general conviction that this time period would be relatively short.
He then makes the curious statement that the zealous journeys of St. Paul were not so much for the conversion of individual souls, but for the Gospel to be preached to the entire world. Benedict writes, “The restlessness with which Paul journeyed to the nations, so as to bring the message to all and, if possible, to fulfill the mission within his own lifetime – this restlessness can only be explained if one is aware of the historical and eschatological significance of his explanation: ‘Necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel’ (I Cor. 9:16).”
Benedict then goes on to make the novel claim, “In this sense, the urgency of evangelization in the apostolic era was predicated not so much for each individual to acquire knowledge of the Gospel in order to attain salvation, but rather on this grand conception of history: if the world was to arrive at its destiny, the Gospel had to be brought to all nations.” [4]
It must be remembered that in these books, as he noted in Volume I of Jesus of Nazareth, the Pope is speaking as a private theologian and not authoritatively as head of the Church. His comments do not bind the faithful in any way. His statements and his outlook can be mistaken, especially if they conflict with the perennial magisterium of the centuries – which is the only measuring rod that counts.
Benedict’s claim that St. Paul did not spend himself primarily for the salvation of individual souls is open to grave doubt. We have Our Lord’s words in which He commanded his apostles, “Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16: 15-16). Conversion of souls is clearly the emphasis.
Likewise, St. Peter on Pentecost morning passionately urged the Jews in Jerusalem to “save yourself from this perverse generation”, telling them they must enter Christ’s Church for salvation (Acts 2).
On a similar note, Blessed Abbot Marmion, the great master of the Spiritual life, notes that it was the love of Christ and zeal for souls that impelled St. Paul to suffer untold hardships and suffering for his mission: “The charity of Christ presseth us. Therefore will I spend myself willingly without reserve, without counting the cost; I will consume myself for the souls won by Him (II Cor. 12:15).” [5]
These words indicate St. Paul’s primary motivation to be the salvation of individual souls, and not an eschatological vision of bringing about the fulfillment of the “time of the Gentiles” in his lifetime.
Thus one is puzzled to read Benedict’s words that Paul’s ardor and restlessness “can only be explained” by Paul’s zeal to fulfill an eschatological vision first, and the salvation of souls secondarily. Here, however, Benedict speaks more according to the pattern of an ecuмenist, since ecuмenical theologians seldom speak of the need for conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church, but rather of a grand, yet-unspecified, ecuмenical vision.
“The Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews”
Cardinal Torquemada, the great theologian of the Council of Florence, explained: “Thus it is that Pope Innocent III [above] states that it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed ...” .
This brings us to Benedict’s statements concerning the Jews, in which he says, “Here I should like to recall the advice given by Bernard of Clairvaux to his pupil Pope Eugene III on this matter. He reminds the Pope that his duty of care extends not only to Christians, but ‘You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew, Greek or Gentile.’ Then he immediately corrects himself and observes more accurately: ‘Granted, with regard to the Jews, times excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first…’
He continues, “Hildegard Brem comments on this passage as follows: ‘In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in ‘ (Rom. 11:25). On the contrary, the Jews themselves are a living homily to which the Church must draw attention, since they call to mind the Lord’s suffering…” [6]
At this point, Benedict drops the topic of the conversion of the Jews, leaving Catholics to argue about what he really means. Does he mean the Church should not try to convert Jews at all, since they are not “rejected by God” and are bound to accept Christ at the end of time after the “time of the Gentiles”? Or does he mean that modern Jews still need to formally accept Christ and His Church for salvation, but the Church should not here and now launch a specific missionary enterprise for their conversion?
There are some who conclude that Benedict means the Church should not now commence a special crusade to convert Jews, and this is likely the context in which Hildegard Brem spoke. We know, for example, that during Vatican I, the two Fathers Lémann, converts from Judaism, put forth a motion for the Church to embark on a special program for conversion of the Jews, but circuмstance prevented the Fathers of Vatican I from taking up this discussion. [7]
Reading Joseph Ratzinger’s other writings on this topic, however, prevent us from arriving at such a benign conclusion. The writings of Joseph Ratzinger indicate that he sees no real need to try to convert Jews, and their salvation is not endangered by their rejection of Christ and by their adherence to modern Judaism.
Rather, he sees the conversion of the Jews at the end of time as somehow excusing us from trying to convert Jews here and now, and that today’s Jews have their own legitimate fidelity to God. In the spirit of Vatican II’s new interreligious orientation, he states that Jews and Christians must share a “common mission” to “be a witness to the one God” so as to “open the door into the world for this God…” [8]
This is the conclusion we are forced to when we read Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth in light of his previous books, Light of the World (2010), God and the World (2002) and Many Religions–One Covenant (1998).
The New Good Friday Prayer
In Light of the World, released in late 2010, Pope Benedict explains that he purposely changed the Old Liturgy’s Good Friday Prayer because Jews found it offensive. He also invokes the fact, as he does in Jesus of Nazareth Part II, that the Jews are destined to convert after the “Time of the Gentiles”.
When the interviewer asks Benedict why in February 2008 he changed the Old Good Friday prayer, he answers:
“…in the old liturgy this point seemed to me to require a modification. The old formulation really was offensive to Jews and failed to express the positively overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament. I believed that a modification of this passage of the old liturgy was necessary, especially, as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jєωιѕн friends. I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all, that there are not two channels of salvation, so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles. But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour in history when we may all be united.” [9]
Here we see the major points in Benedict’s thinking:
1) The ancient prayer of the Church for the conversion of Jews was not theologically correct and needed modification, as it failed to consider the “positive intrinsic unity” of the Old and New Testaments;
2) The prayer should be changed because it is “offensive to Jews”;
3) The focus of the Good Friday prayer is shifted from praying for the conversion “in a missionary sense” here and now, to “hasten the day” when the time of the Gentiles will be complete, “the hour in history” for the conversion of the Jews “when all may be united”; which is the same line he propounds in his latest book, Jesus of Nazareth, Part II;
4) There are not two channels of salvation, but one: Christ, who is ultimately the redeemer of Jew and Gentile alike.
This last point on the centrality of Christ should not be viewed as some sort of reestablishment of traditional teaching, since it is more in line with the new approach to interreligious dialogue that even the arch-modernist Father Jacques Dupuis propounded.
In 2003, at the interreligous conference in Fatima that I attended, I heard Jacques Dupuis state that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is to “make a Buddhist a better Buddhist, a Hindu a better Hindu”. Dupuis denounced the Council of Florence’s infallible statement on “outside the Church there is no salvation” as a “horrible text”.[10]
But even Dupuis insisted that the salvation of the “others” (non-Catholics) ultimately comes through Christ and not by means of their own religion. Thus, when we look at the complete package of Benedict’s teaching on the centrality of Christ regarding Jews (whom he never says need to convert for salvation), we see it is more in line with the modernist Jacques Dupuis than with the Catholic magisterium of the centuries. Christ is their Ssavior, but there is no immediate need for these non-Catholics to convert to Christ’s one true Church to be saved.
We will observe the same line followed in the other books by Cardinal Ratzinger.
“They Are Not Excluded from Salvation”
In the 2002 book God and the World, the interviewer asks if God has retracted his word to the Chosen People, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responds that God has not retracted His word, and “as Christians, we believe they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God’s plans; rather, they still stand with the faithful covenant of God.” Thus we return to the Jews’ conversion at the end of time as his focal point.
While reiterating the Catholic “belief” that Jews should accept Christ, the Cardinal never mentions consequences of the Jews’ disbelief, never states that their salvation is in the slightest jeopardy. He reiterates that Christ is the Messiah of the Jews as well.
When the interviewer quotes St. Paul’s statement on the Jews’ “hardness of heart” and St. Paul’s statement that Jews are both “enemies of the Gospel” and “beloved of God”, Cardinal Ratzinger responds:
“On the one hand, their No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve salvation in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.” [11]
Thus we see the same themes as in Jesus of Nazareth Part II. Today’s Jews reject Christ, but they are not excluded from salvation, [12] and we take comfort in the fact that “they will in the end be together with us in Christ.” Again, no mention of the need for today’s Jews to convert for salvation.
“Common Mission”
Finally we arrive at Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 Many Religions – One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World. Here we read the Cardinal discussing the relationship between today’s Christians and Jews.
The Cardinal lays emphasis on Our Lord’s mission of “unification” and “reconciliation”, that the “mission of Jesus is to unite Jews and pagans into a single People of God in which the universalist promises of the Scriptures are fulfilled that speak again and again of the nations worshipping the God of Israel.” [13]
This means that “all nations, without abolishment of the special mission of Israel, become brothers and receivers of the promises of the Chosen People; they become People of God with Israel through adherence to the will of God and through acceptance of the Davidic Kingdom”. [14]
One would like to think this is a roundabout way of Cardinal Ratzinger stating that the unification and reconciliation of Christ is that Jews would abandon their false religion and adhere to the one true Church of God, but again, the Cardinal’s own words prevent us from accepting this interpretation.
The Cardinal goes on to say that the “present responsibility of Jews and Christians in the modern world” consists in “representing the truth of the one will of God before the world and thus placing man before his inner truth…” The Cardinal continues to speak of Jews and Christians as having a common religious mission: “Jews and Christians must bear witness to the one God, to the creator of heaven and earth.”
He closes his chapter by intensifying his position regarding the “large question of the common mission of Jews and Christians in the modern world.” He says, “Jews and Christian should accept each other in profound inner reconciliation, neither in disregard of their faith nor in denying it, but out of the depth of faith itself. In their mutual reconciliation, they should become a force for peace in and for the world.
Through their witness to the one God, who cannot be adored apart from the unity of love of God and neither in disregard of their faith, nor in denying it, but out of the depth of faith itself. In their mutual recognition, they should become a force for peace in and for the world… , they should open the door into the world for this God so that His will may be done…” [15]
By all appearances, we cannot help but conclude that Benedict sees Jews and Christians having a common mission to bring God to mankind and peace to the world. We never see any mention of the need of Jews to convert to the Church for salvation. Rather, we are left to draw the opposite conclusion.
How contrary are Cardinal Ratzinger’s words to the teaching of Pope Pius VII, who in his Encyclical Letter Post tam diuturnas, denounced the new concept of religious liberty: “By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Holy and Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jєωιѕн perfidy [faithlessness]”. [16]
Pius VII as every Pope prior to Vatican II, would have condemned the notion that Christian and Jews have a “common mission” to bring God to the world, which places the “spotless bride of Christ on the same level as Jєωιѕн faithlessness”; and would have condemned the notion that we should quietly abandon any mention of the need that Jews convert to the Catholic Church.
Yet the new idea that Jews and Christians have a “common mission” and are “partners of equal dignity” in leading the world to God harkens back to the little-known meeting between Jews and Vatican envoy Congar that occurred at the time of Vatican II.
Rome’s Secret Accord with Jєωιѕн Leaders
During Vatican II, Father Yves Congar, acting as official Vatican envoy, met with Jews in France to ask them what they wanted. The Jews answered they wanted considered as “brothers, partners equal in dignity”. Lazare Landau writes, “the Council granted our wishes”. Since then, two new concepts have emerged in the Church’s relations with Jews; the notion of “praying to the same Lord”, and that of a “common mission” to bring God to the world.
During the early days of the Second Vatican Council, a secret meeting took place between the Holy See and a group of Jews. It was a kind of “Vatican-Moscow” agreement applied to the ѕуηαgσgυє. The Vatican-Moscow agreement was a secret pact between Vatican and the Kremlin made in 1962 wherein in exchange for Russian Orthodox observers to be present at the Council, John XXIII guaranteed that Vatican II would contain no condemnation of Communism. [17]
News of the pact between Moscow and the Vatican is now widely publicized. The Vatican’s secret accord with Jєωιѕн leaders is not so well known.
The meeting concerning the Jews took place around 1962-63, and was recounted by the Jєωιѕн writer Lazare Landau in the French journal Tribune Juive (number 903), dated January 17-23, 1986. Pope John XXIII had entrusted these negotiations to Cardinal Bea, who at the time was the Pope’s point man for ecuмenism and interreligious dialogue.
Landau writes of Bea: “He sent secret emissaries to the Jєωιѕн communities to find out what they wanted. Thus, the Jews of Strasbourg received the Reverend Father Congar, OP, who came, shrouded in mystery, to the ѕуηαgσgυє, where he listened for two hours as the community leaders explained their grievances.”
This was the origin of the “new perspective” that would be imposed on Catholic doctrine, which was, as Jean Madiran notes, that “we must no longer speak of the infidelity of Israel but of its fidelity.”
Lazare Landau went into much more detail about this meeting in number 1001 of Tribune Juive, dated December 25-31, 1987. Landau reveals:
“On a misty, freezing winter’s evening in 1962-1963, I went to the Centre communautaire de le Paix [Peace Community Center] at Strasbourg in response to an extraordinary invitation. The Jєωιѕн leaders were holding a secret meeting in the basement with the envoy of the Pope. At the conclusion of the Sabbath, a dozen of us were there to welcome a white-robed Dominican, the Reverend Yves Congar, whom Cardinal Bea, in the name of John XXIII had charged with asking us, on the eve of the Council, what we expected from the Church...
“The Jews, kept apart from Christian society for nearly twenty centuries, and often treated as underdogs, enemies and deicides, asked to be completely rehabilitated. As descendants in the direct lineage from the monotheistic stock of Abraham, where Christianity arose, they asked to be considered as brothers, partners equal in dignity, of the Christian Church…
“The white messenger, divested of any symbol or adornment, returned to Rome taking with him innumerable petitions in harmony with our own. After difficult debate … the Council granted our wishes.
“Homilies and catechisms changed in a few short years. In France, the flower of this renewed doctrine was presented by the Editions du Centurion under the name: The Faith of Catholics. The French episcopate, in the person of L.A. Elchinger, Bishop of Strasbourg, played a decisive part in the presenting of the contemporary ‘Jєωιѕн Question’ at the Council. The clergy readily adopted the conciliar decisions. This attitude found powerful backing in the ‘Pastoral Orientations’ of the Episcopal committee for relations with Judaism, published by the French Episcopal Conference on April 16, 1973.
“In the Vatican itself, this current of thought received endorsement from a most eminent quarter. On October 4, 1983, in front of Pope John Paul II and the World Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Etchegaray, the minister of the Holy See, made a ringing declaration that resolved all the Jєωιѕн ‘problems’ in two points:
1. A total definitive reconciliation with Judaism and the Jews;
2. Repentance and pardon to be sought for the wrongs committed in the past.
“Since the secret visit from Father Congar in a concealed part of the ѕуηαgσgυє, on a cold winter’s night, the Church’s doctrine has indeed undergone a total change.” [18]
Jean Madiran noted that Father Congar would never confirm or deny that this meeting took place. What is most important, however, is that we see the consequences of Landau’s report unfolding from the time of the Council to the present.
Vatican II, John Paul II
We saw the beginning of this “total change” in Vatican II’s Nostrae Aetate, wherein we read in the Fourth Chapter: “Given the great spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jews, it is the wish of this Sacred Council to foster and recommend a mutual knowledge and esteem … the Jews should not be presented as rejected by God or accursed, as though this followed from Scripture.”
Pope John Paul II, in his first address said that he considered it his “primary duty” to “favor the development of Conciliar attitudes”, so that “what was ‘implicit’” in the Council “should be made explicit”. True to his word, he took the Council’s teaching on the Jews to its logical conclusion, making explicit what was implicit. [19] Space only permits us to note a few of many examples, not the least of which his being the first Pope to visit a ѕуηαgσgυє as an ecuмenical gesture, not as a mission for conversion.
At a 1982 meeting in Rome that comprised the schismatic Orthodox, the Anglican communion, the World Lutheran Federation and the World Council of Churches, Pope John Paul II said “our two religious communities [Christianity and Judaism] are linked at the level of their very identity itself.”
He continued, “Our common spiritual inheritance [Christians and Jews] is particularly significant at the level of our faith in a single God, one, good and merciful, who loves them and leads them to love Him, the master of history and of the destiny of mankind, who is our Father and who chose Israel, the cultivated olive-tree onto which has been grafted the wild-olive branch of the Gentiles.” [20]
Commenting on this speech, French writer Jean Madiran noted, “We have two new ideas, then: those of the same God, and of close collaboration, two ideas which seem to derive from the logic of the Council, though the Council text did not go so far as spelling them out so clearly.” [21]
It is a case where John Paul II made explicit what was implicit in the Council.
Our Churchmen’s new attitude toward the Jews was made even more explicit in the 1985 Notes for a Correct Presentation of Jews and Judaism in the preaching and Catechesis of the Catholic Church”, a Vatican docuмent approved by John Paul II who “ratified it as being in line with his own thinking in his speech of October 28, 1985.” [22]
Though much could be said about this docuмent, a key quotation reveals the fuller import of the notion of the “same God” and “close collaboration”. The Notes say:
“Attentive to the same God who has spoken, hanging on the same word, we have to witness to one same memory and one common hope in Him who is the master of history. We must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation. To this we are driven, Jews and Christians, by the command to love our neighbor, by a common hope for the Kingdom of God and by the great heritage of the Prophets. Transmitted soon enough by catechesis, such a conception would teach young Christians in a practical way to cooperate with Jews, going beyond simple dialogue.” [23]
Here we see in the 1985 Vatican Notes the emergence of notion of “common mission” between Jews and Catholics to a worldly goal that could be propounded by the Masonic Lodge or the United Nations: “working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation.” We are also stunned at the idea that the docuмent puts on the same level those who have accepted the true Messiah, and those who have rejected the true Messiah, claiming that we should jointly “prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah”.
This docuмent as well as the ecuмenical orientation behind it passes over in “significant silence” the very words of Our Lord who said to the Jews of his day:
• “You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He [the Son of God], you will die in your sins.” (John 8:23-24).
• “If God were your Father, you would indeed love Me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of Myself, but He sent Me.” (John 8:42)
• “He who honereth not the Son, honerteh not the Father, who hath sent Him” (John 5:23) )(Thus, Jews and Christians do not worship the same God).
Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when these Notes were published, and there is no record he offered any such correction to this docuмent. Rather, as his books indicate, we see the thought-pattern in the Notes emerge as his own thinking regarding the Church’s new relationship with the Jews.
New Catechism, ѕуηαgσgυє Visits
As we proceed quickly through the years – a detailed history of which would require a book-length treatment – we see the new attitude towards the Jews reflected in the 1993 Roman Catechism, [24] and in Pope Benedict’s visits to three ѕуηαgσgυєs. [25]
At the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє in 2010, Pope Benedict said, “Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, [26] they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other. It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful.”[27]
Again we confront the points of “praying to the same God”, of “common mission”, and of Jews and Christians, in the words of Landau, “considered as brothers, partners in equal dignity,”
Thus we better understand Pope Benedict’s latest statements concerning the conversion of the Jews. As noted in the beginning of this article, the new approach to the Jews was inaugurated at Vatican II, in response to the secret meeting wherein Jews asked that they be “completely rehabilitated” (and “the Council granted our wishes”). We see the implicit teaching of Vatican II made explicit by Pope John Paul II in his words, his actions and in the 1985 Notes on the Jєωιѕн people published with his full approval.
We likewise see the consistent thought of Benedict XVI regarding Jews and Catholics having a “common mission” to bring God to the world, with no need to try to convert Jews since they are destined to convert after the “time of the Gentiles”. This is reflected in Pope Benedict’s 2008 Good Friday prayer for the Tridentine Mass wherein we do not pray that God may “remove the blindness” that prevents Jews from formally accepting Christ, but that God may “propitiously grant that as the fullness of the Gentiles enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved.”
This is the thinking manifest in the Pope’s Jesus of Nazareth, Part II. His thought pattern is based primarily on the ecuмenical orientation of Vatican II and its subsequent developments.
Ecuмenism and “Significant Silence”
In 1962, the eminent Thomistic theologian Father Edward Hanahoe warned against the new ecuмenical theologians who place ecuмenism as the final goal of theological reasoning, rather than the true ecclesiology taught by the Church for centuries. In other words, for the ecuмenists, theology is not meant to serve the traditional Church teaching, but to serve the new ecuмenical orientation and whatever favors it.
Among many aspects of this problem, Father Hanahoe speaks of a common flaw found in ecuмenical theologians, wherein they engage in “significant silence” on those points of Catholic doctrine that may put a crimp in their ecuмenical designs.
Father Hanahoe also notes that these ecuмenical theologians will often act as if the magisterium has not spoken definitively on these crucial points of doctrine. He quotes Leo XIII’s warning in his Letter against Americanism: “Far be it, then, for anyone to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine.” [28]
As much as we would wish the contrary, we see Pope Benedict engaging in “significant silence” and passing over crucial points of “divinely delivered doctrine” in order to cling to the new Conciliar position regarding our alleged “common mission” with Jews that plays down their need to convert.
We are struck by Pope Benedict’s “significant silence” concerning the following points of doctrine:
• Outside the Church there is no salvation: The Council of Florence teaches infallibly "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatic can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her…” [29];
This doctrine has been infallibly define three times and taught continually throughout the centuries by the ordinary magisterium, such as the repeated papal condemnations of religious indifferentism in the 19th Century, and by Pius XII’s Humani Generis. There is nothing cruel or “anti-semitic” about this dogma, as it has been taught by the Church since the time of Christ and flows from the words of Our Lord Himself: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).
• Catholic Doctrine Cannot Change: It is the very nature of reality itself that objective truth cannot change. Thus what the Council of Florence defined is infallibly true for all time. Even a Pope cannot alter it. [30] And Vatican II, which is only a pastoral Council that formally defined nothing, cannot change doctrine at all. [31] Further, Vatican I formally stamped out any idea of an “evolution of doctrine” when it taught that we are bound to believe Catholic doctrine “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” of what the Church always taught without change. Vatican I further taught infallibly, “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” [32]
• The Old Covenant is Superseded by the New: Thus one can no longer speak of Jews as having their own covenant with God, or exercising some sort of fidelity in light of the fact of their once-held status as the Chosen People. [33]
The eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains the perennial Catholic teaching on this matter that the word “Church” has one meaning. It is the Kingdom of God on earth; the people of the Divine Covenant, the true Israel of God, the one social unit outside of which salvation cannot be found. Prior to the coming of Christ, this ecclesia, this people of the Divine Covenant had been the people of Israel. But when they rejected Our Lord Jesus Christ, they lost their status as the true Israel of God. Modern-day Jews cannot truly be considered sons of Abraham, since they have forsaken the Faith of Abraham in regard to Jesus Christ our Redeemer. [34]
Thus, to speak as if today’s Jews have no need to convert is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the infallible Catholic doctrine of the centuries, and a supreme lack of charity. Jews, as well as all non-Catholics, need to be told in Christ-like charity, and with no bitterness, that it is crucial for them to accept Christ and His Catholic Church as the one and only means established by God for salvation.
In doing this, one can readily adopt the gentle wording of the moral theologian Father Francis Connell who said in 1944 that Catholics need to be instructed to tell non-Catholics when asked that “we consider them deprived of the ordinary means of salvation, no matter how excellent their intentions.” [35]
• The Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms: Our Catholic Faith has always taught that all of mankind is divided into two Kingdoms. As Leo XIII teaches in Humanum Genus, from the time of Adam, mankind “separated into two diverse and opposite parts,” the one that holds steadfastly for truth, and the other of those that are contrary to virtue and to truth. “The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation … The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law…” [36]
Every man on earth is part of one of these two kingdoms. There is no third alternative.
Unfortunately – speaking in the objective order — all who are separated from the Church are part of the Kingdom of Satan, whether they recognize it or not. They are outside the reality of sanctifying grace, and membership in our Lord’s ecclesia.
Msgr. Fenton explains, “In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, the social unit [the old Jєωιѕн religious commonwealth] had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the Divine Faith itself. By manifesting this rejecting of the faith, the Jєωιѕн religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God’s ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.” [37]
Fenton continues, “At the moment of Our Lord’s death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jєωιѕн religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord’s disciples began to be the supernatural Kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord’s disciples began to exist as the ecclesia, or the kingdom.” [38]
Pretending modern-day Jews enjoy some of third alternative of fidelity to God is a rupture with the teaching of the Sacred Scripture and with Catholic doctrine of all time. The true doctrine of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries cannot be denounced as being somehow cruel or “anti-Semitic”, for to accuse God and His beautiful Divine Revelation as cruel is a manifestation of blasphemy.
We must continue to pray for Pope Benedict that he may no longer maintain “significant silence” on these crucial points of Catholic truth for the sake of a new ecuмenical construct, but state them openly as the duty of his office demands. And we pray that God may soon send us a Pope who will return to the traditional teachings reiterated above that one no longer hears from today’s Church leaders.
“Whole and Inviolate”
In the meantime, Catholics faithful to Tradition must remain steadfast to true Catholic doctrine even if those in the highest places have cashed in the genuine Catholic coin for the counterfeit currency of ecuмenical theology.
In resisting these novel teachings, we display ourselves as faithful Catholics, following the command of the Athanasian Creed to “keep the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate” We also follow the instruction of Pope Innocent III who taught that if even a Pope departs from the universal teaching and customs of the Church, “he need not be followed” on these points. [39] Saint Robert Bellarmine adds that such a Pope must also be respectfully resisted. [40]
Let us heed the directive of Our Lady of Fatima to “pray a great deal for the Holy Father”.
And let us pray daily the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus promulgated by Pope Pius XI for the Feast of Christ the King, in which we beseech Our Lord to “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.”
Notes
1. “Church Should Not Pursue Conversion of Jews, Pope Says”, John Allen, National Catholic Reporter, March 10, 2010.
2. “Cardinal Affirms Ecuмenical Nature of Pope’s Book”, Zenit, March 11, 2011.
3. In this presentation I am only going as far as Father Hanahoe; pointing out weaknesses and grave flaws in the ecuмenical framework and among ecuмenical theologians that lead to disastrous consequences. I am not accusing anyone of formal heresy. I am not a sedevacantist, and this piece should not be interpreted as an attempt to advance a sedevacantist position. I also repeat the strong words of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who said that a man who has sworn the Oath Against Modernism, and then advances Modernism himself, or allows Modernism to be advance “would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer. "Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism," Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1960, pp. 259-260. Msgr. Fenton describes a key aspect of Modernism being the belief in “some transformation of the dogmatic message of the Church throughout the course of the centuries.” See “the Components of Liberal Catholicism”, Msgr. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, July, 1958.
4. Jesus of Nazareth Part II: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, Pope Benedict XVI, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011], pp. 43-44. Emphasis added.
5. Christ in His Mysteries, Abbot Columba Marmion, [London: Sands & Co., 1939] p. 364.
6. Jesus of Nazareth Part II, Holy Week, pp. 44-45.
7. The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation, Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. [Originally published in 1953. Republished by Christian Book Club of America, Palmdale, CA, 1987], pp. 116-117.
8. Many Religions – One Covenant, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1998], p. 45-46.
9. Light of the World, Benedict XVI, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010] pp. 106-107.
10. See “Fatima to Become and Interfaith Shrine: An Account from One who was There”, John Vennari, Catholic Family News, December 2003. [Reprint #890 available from CFN for $3.00 postpaid This report and a number of reports about the interfaith activity at Fatima are on linen at: www.cfnews.org/Fatima.htm
11. God and the World, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002], pp. 150-151. Emphasis added.
12. Whether or not an individual Jew by an extraordinary grace of God will convert at the last millli-second of his life is not what we are talking about (St .John Vianney mentions such an occurrence), nor are we suggesting the impossibility of Jews converting to Catholicism, which would be absurd. Rather, the ecuмenical context in which the Cardinal makes his statement cannot help but give the impression he means the Jew need not convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.
13. Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 26.
14. Ibid., pp. 27-28.
15. Ibid., pp. 45-46
16. Pope Pius VII, Letter, Post tam diurturnas, quoted from The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism, Father Denis Fahey, [Originally published in 1943. Republished by Christian Book Club of America, Palmdale, CA, 1987] p. 10. Quote also found in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation, p. 12.
17. Vatican-Moscow Agreement, Jean Madiran. The Fatima Crusader, No. 16. Sept.-Oct., 1984
18. Quoted directly form “Rome’s Secret Accord with Jєωιѕн Leaders”, Jean Madiran, Originally published in the Autumn 1990 issue of Madiran’s French journal Intineraires, published in English by Anthony Fraser’s Apropos, Supplement to Apropos No. 9 (not dated), pp. 4-6.. Emphasis added.
19. Pope John Paul II saw his primary task to further the progressivist agenda of Vatican II. On October 17, 1978, the newly- elected John Paul II said: “We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent but encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the Council. Above all we must favor the development of Conciliar attitudes. First one must be in harmony with the Council. One must put into effect what was started in its docuмents; and what was ‘implicit’ should be made explicit in the light of the experiments that followed and in the light of new and emerging circuмstances.” Quoted from Peter Hebblethwaite, “Pope John Paul II,” from a collection of essays entitled Modern Catholicism, Vatican II and After, edited by Adrian Hastings, (London: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 447. Emphasis added.
20. Quoted from “The Jєωιѕн Question in the Church”, Jean Madiran. Published in the French journal Itineraires, March 1986. Published in English by Hamish Fraser’s Approaches, “Supplement to Approaches No. 93, [not dated], p.4.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., p. 5.
23. Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, 1985. Published by the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. On line at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html [emphasis added]
24. The 1993 Catechism says, “And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.” [#840]. The Catechism thus places on the same level those who accepted the true Messiah and those who rejected Him, claiming that awaiting Our Lord’s final coming at the end of time are similar goals. This is a monstrous ambiguity that causes tremendous confusion. On a similar note, Cardinal Ratzinger in Many Religions— One Covenant employs various sections of the New Catechism as a means of explaining the Church’s new relationship with Jews.
25. The first two were in Germany, August 19, 2005; and New York City, April 18, 2006. The third was the visit to the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє on January 17, 2010. Rabbi David Rosen, director of the American Jєωιѕн Committee’s Interreligious Affairs enthused, “With the visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє Pope Benedict is institutionalizing revolutions. By visiting the Roman ѕуηαgσgυє, Pope Benedict is making it difficult for subsequence Popes not to pay such a visit. John Paul’s [1986] visit could a have been a one-off, but now with Benedict XVI’s visit, there is a sense of continuity.” “Pope to Make Symbolic Visit to Rome ѕуηαgσgυє this Sunday”, Catholic Herald, January 15, 2010.
26. Speaking on the modernist notion that various religions worship the same God, the eminent theologian Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explained that such a tenet denies the principle of non-contradiction, which is the most fundamental principle of reason. Father Garrigou-Lagrange explains, “It is injurious to say that God would consider with equanimity all religions while one teaches truth and one teachers error, when one promises the good and one promises the evil. To say this would be to affirm that God would be indifferent to good and evil, to what is honest and shameful.” De Revelatione, Father Garrigou-Lagrange, [Paris: Galbalda, 1921], Tome 2, p. 437. Quotes from “Christians, Muslims and Jews: Do we all Have the Same God?”, Father François Knittel, Christendom, November, December, 2007.
27. “Papal Address at ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome: ‘May These Wounds Be Healed Forever’”, Pope Benedict XVI, Zenit, Jan. 17, 2010.
28. “Ecclesiology and Ecuмenism”, Part II, Father Edward Hanahoe, S.A., American Ecclesiastical Review, November, 1962.
29. The full quote reads: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."- Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Feb. 4, 1442.
30. The dogmatic Vatican I proclaimed de fide, that not even a Pope may preach a new doctrine. Defining Papal Infallibility, Vatican I taught: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter IV; Pastor Aeternus.
31. The fact that Vatican II is inferior to a Dogmatic council is confirmed by the testimony of the Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris. Now at his own request, this testimony was not unsealed until after his death: ”I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council docuмents as tentative and liable to be reformed." [Interview of Bishop Morris by Kiernon Wood, Catholic World News, Sept. 27, 1997.] Then there is the important testimony from the Council's Secretary, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Pericle Felici. At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked Archbishop Felici for that which the theologians call the "theological note" of the Council. That is, the doctrinal "weight" of Vatican II's teachings. Felici replied: "We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations."[Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre, Kansas City, Angelus Press, 1992), p. 107].
32. Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Dei Filius / Vatican I’s Dei Filius also teaches infallibly “let therefore the understanding, the knowledge and the wisdom of individual men, and of all men, of one man, and of the entire Church, grow and advance greatly and powerfully, over the course of the years and the ages, but only in its own class, in the same dogma, with the same meaning and in the same explanation.” The Oath Against Modernism brings out the same truth. The man who takes this Oath makes the following promise, “I sincerely receive the doctrine of faith handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, with the same meaning and the same explanation; and consequently I completely reject the heretical fiction of an evolution of dogma, changing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first held.” Translation from “Two Statements About the Necessity of the Catholic Church for the Attainment of Eternal Salvation,” Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, June 1962, p. 408.
33. It should be noted that in Many Religions— One Covenant, Cardinal Ratzinger actually says that “the Sinai Covenant is indeed superseded” (p. 70), but then goes on to change the emphasis and thus refuses to draw the implications from this supersession in the manner that the Catholic Church has taught throughout the centuries. For example, he never draws the realistic conclusion as Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains it.
34. American theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains, “The new organized or visible society [of Christ] continued its profession of the divine faith when the other social unit, the old Jєωιѕнh religious commonwealth, abandoned that faith in repudiating the divine Redeemer. Thus the older social unite lost its status as the ecclesia or kingdom of God on earth while the new organization, the faithful remnant of Israel, went on to be the ecclesia in a much more compete and perfect sense than the other had ever been.” Quoted from “The Meaning of the Word ‘Church’”, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1954.
35. “Communication with Non-Catholics in Sacred Rites,” Father Francis Connell, C.Ss.R., American Ecclesiastical Review, September, 1944.
36. Humanum Genus, On Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Pope Leo XIII, April 20, 1884.
37. The Catholic Church and Salvation, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton [Westiminster: Newman Press, 1958] pp. 138-139.
38. Ibid. p. 139.
39. Juan Cardinal de Torquemada (1388-1468) was a revered medieval theologian responsible for the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at the Council of Florence. Cardinal Torquemada teaches: “Were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands he is to be disregarded. Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Cardinal Torquemada further teaches: “Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed ...” Sources: Summa de ecclesia (Venice: M. Tranmezium, 1561). Lib. II, c. 49, p. 163B. The English translation of this statement of Juan de Torquemada is found in Patrick Granfield, The Papacy in Transition (New York: Doubleday, 1980), p. 171. And in Father Paul Kramer, A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, 2nd ed. (Kerala, India), p. 29.
40. Saint Robert Bellarmine, the great champion of the Counter-Reformation, teaches: : "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, chap. 29, in Opera omnia, Neapoli/Panormi/Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. I, p. 418
-
No biggie...he is just confused and mentally incapable of believing anything...
-
The Popes a modernist heretic what can you expect. He certainly has no care for the truth. He is the biggest αnтι-ѕємιтє in the Church because he does not want the jews conversion.
-
Gakersville i saw that argument somewhere else (about him being αnтι-ѕємιтє) and thought it was classic! I think it was an interview w/ B. Williamson. I agree!
-
The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 2002 released a docuмent about the Jews and the Bible, prefaced and signed by then-"Cardinal" Ratzinger, where it said "the Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain."
Knowing this will put another spin on what he might be saying in the new book and in the others cited.
Vennari says, "Rather, he sees the conversion of the Jews at the end of time as somehow excusing us from trying to convert Jews here and now, and that today’s Jews have their own legitimate fidelity to God."
This interpretation of Ratzinger's words is, if not proven, given immense weight by his actions and those of his predescessor whose ethos he shares, like visiting ѕуηαgσgυєs and, in the case of JPII, the Wailing Wall, by the bestowal of honors upon Jews, like when JPII honored the Jєωιѕн conductor James Levine, by attempting to turn the h0Ɩ0cαųst into a focal point of the faith. It is seen in the way that rabbis are invited to speak at local Novus Ordo churches.
In his new book ( sniff sniff, I smell a bonfire ), he makes it sound like individual conversion of individual Jews is not necessary due to the end-times predicted mass conversion of Jews from the Apocalypse. But as every moderately educated Catholic knows, we don't stop trying to convert non-believers in the present just because, at some unspecified future time, a group of non-believers will convert en masse.
The conversion of those future Jews is not going to save the souls of current Jews, is it? Is God unconcerned with the present Jews? That's not very loving towards the Jews to imply as much, "Benedict"!
But when you factor in the statement above, that the Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain, it all becomes more clear, if clarity is possible when dealing with Ratzinger. Most likely, he is alluding to Anti-Christ. The eschatological event he's hinting at, then, is not the conversion of the Jews from the Apocalypse, but the culmination of all heresies under Anti-Christ.
That is the only way to reconcile the irreconciliables of his speech. If Vennari is correct and Ratzinger believes that the Jews of today have their own "fidelity to God," ( and how can Vennari think this and still support him as true Pope? ) it is most likely because he rejects the real Christ, though in a subtle way, and believes that anti-Christ is the real Messiah: "The Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain."
The Jews don't need to convert today, because they are already saved. And in the future, they will "convert" en masse -- to Anti-Christ, who, rather than correcting Jєωιѕн errors, will be the culmination of them.
The contradiction in Ratzinger's words is only apparent. If Ratzinger believed the Jews of today had rejected Christ and that this would endanger their souls, he would be obligated to correct them. But he doesn't, because he most likely believes in their wait for a Messiah, and who could that be but anti-Christ? Vennari is confused and tangled up because he doesn't dare to make this hypothesis, but for those who already believe Ratzinger is doing the work of Satan, and at an extremely high level, it is not far-fetched.
I haven't yet written my little essay about the horns of the beast in the Apocalypse, but I believe this alludes to certain false Popes who precede the Anti-Christ. While no one can read Ratzinger's mind and say for sure what is going on, when you put it all together, it makes it at least plausible that he is consciously building a bridge to anti-Christ. It is only fear of the Lord, and of overstepping my bounds, that stops me from saying how certain I really am of this.
So when he brings in this other event from the Apocalypse PRECEDING Anti-Christ, which is the conversion of a certain number of Jews to the Catholic Church, it's unlikely he's really talking about that. His statements are often phrased in a way that traditionals can see as traditional, but whereby Modernists if not full-blown Satanists can read between the lines.
An accident, the product of a senile mind? You be the judge. I see nothing even remotely accidental in the way that Ratzinger speaks. There is a consistency to the way he mingles error and truth, which, by the way, is how Pius X defined Modernists, those who mix truth and error. Yet people still act as if they're surprised and they can't figure it out, he says something orthodox one day like "Mary is a virgin" and they think this wipes out all his heresies and errors. They still are hung up on this old idea of a heretic, the kind that just takes a wayward position, like that Christ has one nature in the case of the Monophysites, and hammers away at it. But Modernism is the SYNTHESIS of all heresies, according to Pius X, a clever way to avoid pertinacity, perhaps, or at least an attempt at that. They skip from one heresy to another like sparrows pecking seeds on a parvis. But the Judaization is consistent and clear.
Anyway, just signing this book that says the "Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain" invalidates him as Pope. No one who lends his approval to that could possibly ever be validly elected Pope. That is his version of JPII's "The Old Covenant has never been revoked," but even more sinister, because it brings in allusions to Anti-Christ. Also, the Vatican claims the book in which this was printed is dogmatic.
-
Also, the Vatican claims the book in which this was printed is dogmatic.
Yes, but was the claim made via an indisputably infallible teaching mechanism? :wink:
-
As for the Jews' expectation not being in vain, that is like telling someone that the train he seeks, which left the station 2000 years ago, may yet arrive any minute. It is pure devilry, no matter how you slice it.
-
In 2003, at the interreligous conference in Fatima that I attended, I heard Jacques Dupuis state that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is to “make a Buddhist a better Buddhist, a Hindu a better Hindu”. Dupuis denounced the Council of Florence’s infallible statement on “outside the Church there is no salvation” as a “horrible text”.
Cantate Domino at the Council of Florence was a quote, from Saint Fulgentius (A. D. 533):
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels." (To Peter on the Faith)
So, Jacques Dupuis would have us believe that the Catholic Church was in error for well over 1,000 years but has been teaching the Truth for the last 45 years?
-
Their wait for the Messiah is not in vain because He is coming again.
Ecuмenists play with words to try to evoke a unity that doesn't exist, causing confusion in their wake.
Akin points out the Pope says the Church shouldn't concern herself with their "conversion" not their "evangelization". In other words the Church should still evangelize the Jews but should not be concerned if they do not convert in large numbers because it is foretold they won't convert en masse until the end.
-
If Vennari is correct and Ratzinger believes that the Jews of today have their own "fidelity to God," ( and how can Vennari think this and still support him as true Pope? )
Because he doesn't deign to personally judge the Supreme Pontiff based on his own opinions formed around the Pope's non-infallible statements. Last I checked layman are not authorized to judge the See of Peter. I could be wrong. If you are so authorized, I suggest you start your own religion since you must be divine.
-
Their wait for the Messiah is not in vain because He is coming again.
LOL! To JUDGE infidelity, perfidy, etc! That is hardly something to look forward to if you are a member of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan...
-
Their wait for the Messiah is not in vain because He is coming again.
Ecuмenists play with words to try to evoke a unity that doesn't exist, causing confusion in their wake.
Akin points out the Pope says the Church shouldn't concern herself with their "conversion" not their "evangelization". In other words the Church should still evangelize the Jews but should not be concerned if they do not convert in large numbers because it is foretold they won't convert en masse until the end.
Welcome to the world of precision ambiguity!
-
Because he doesn't deign to personally judge the Supreme Pontiff based on his own opinions formed around the Pope's non-infallible statements.
You DO grasp he can be a public heretic, regardless of his 'official, pontifical' statements?
Last I checked layman are not authorized to judge the See of Peter.
No one is, genius. Disagree, by all means, but at least try to make some of the distinctions you claim are important, but so often fail to make.
I could be wrong.
You are.
Are the Jews correct in their expectation of the Messias, or not? No bullsh*t, please.
-
Their wait for the Messiah is not in vain because He is coming again.
Telling this to deluded people is like saying, "The train will be here again..." when you know it WILL be here again, but only to run their blind, hard-hearted asses over with a vengeance that cannot be conceived.
-
No one is, genius. Disagree, by all means, but at least try to make some of the distinctions you claim are important, but so often fail to make.
No one is judging the Pope, but you and Raoul judge he is not Pope.
Neat trick! :laugh1:
Are the Jews correct in their expectation of the Messias, or not? No bullsh*t, please.
Are you dense? The Jews expect the Messiah to come for the first time. They are wrong in this specific expectation because He already came.
Yet He, the Messiah, is coming for a second time. Thus, in this sense, we are ALL waiting for the Messiah.
Have you not yet figured out, this is what liberals do? They go from specific clear tenents of Catholic belief which are impossible to reconcile with other Faiths, and they step back to more generalized ambiguous statements of belief that both Faiths can accept but with each side interpreting it in a different way. Thus they create the appearance of unity where, in fact, it is all word games to help both sides have warm fuzzies.
You, and other knee-jerk brainwashed Sedes, can't seem to realize this, assume the Pope thinks the Messiah hasn't come, assume the Pope is waiting for the Anti-Christ to come as the Messiah (!!??) in contradiction to all logic, reason, and reality.
The complete lack of logical thought that goes into Sede-ism is perfect fodder for the Neo-Caths to paint all Traditionalists as complete kook-nutters who should be ignored because they can't be taken seriously.
The ridiculous Sede response is basically, "To Hell with them! they (99% of Catholics) are lost blind fools beyond all hope and are worshipping Satan."
This reinforces the popular belief Sedes are nuts, and ensures Sedes will continue to be completely irrelevant to the restoration or winning Neo-Caths over.
-
It will not change anyone's mind, of course, but waiting for the Messias and waiting for the Judge are two very different things.
Jesus only came as the Messias ONCE, 2000 years ago. His next coming will not be as Messias, but as Judge. Those who have failed to make use of the time of mercy will be feel the heavy hand of infinite justice -- and BXVI is setting them up for destruction.
For the love of God and all that passes for sanity, stevus, do not try to twist Card. Ratzinger's obvious meaning.
-
Are you dense? The Jews expect the Messiah to come for the first time. They are wrong in this specific expectation because He already came.
Yet He, the Messiah, is coming for a second time. Thus, in this sense, we are ALL waiting for the Messiah.
You are the dense one, amigo. To say "this" sense, you are using a word that indicates the singular, yet you openly admit it really represents the plural. Your refuse to see what is right in front of your face.
Have you not yet figured out, this is what liberals do?
I know very well what they do. I just don't play into it like a dope. You do.
-
No one is judging the Pope, but you and Raoul judge he is not Pope.
You do grasp that is if he isn't Pope, it is impossible to 'judge' him as Pope, right? You also grasp that disputing one's claim to an office is entirely different from saying he did this or that after certainly assuming the office?
If you were a prosecutor somewhere, I would make sure that if I were going to commit a crime I did so in your area. My acquittal would be morally certain. Where did you go to law school? Juilliard? The University of Phoenix?
-
It will not change anyone's mind, of course, but waiting for the Messias and waiting for the Judge are two very different things.
No sh*t.
Jesus only came as the Messias ONCE, 2000 years ago. His next coming will not be as Messias, but as Judge. Those who have failed to make use of the time of mercy will be feel the heavy hand of infinite justice -- and BXVI is setting them up for destruction.
Libs play with words, GV. You and I know He is coming as judge. Yet He is still the Messiah and so, technically, "the Messiah" will come again, so they are not waiting in vain, in the sense that He is IS indeed coming.
Am I endorsing this ambiguously phrased statement that gives a false appearance of unity between Catholicism Judiasm? NO!!!! I'm simply pointing out how the ecuмenists operate. They operate subtlely and slyly.
You would figure them all either complete idiots or insane fools who don't even realize the meaning of "Messiah" or else believe Jesus was not the Messiah! Do you realize what you are saying? That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology? You would turn him into a blubbering idiot to explain away his "obviously" false statements. In reality he is not an idiot and am telling you the only logical explanation in which his words make any sense.
For the love of God and all that passes for sanity, stevus, do not try to twist Card. Ratzinger's obvious meaning.
How the Hell am I twisting his "obvious" meaning? I'm stating "obvious" facts and using his exact words!
A lot of things are "obvious" to you aren't they? Oddly 99.9% of people can't see what you claim is "obvious". This would lead a rational man to question whether these things are "obvious" or not.
-
You're not fooling anyone but yourself, Steve-O.
Not a single person has ever interpreted the line from the book in the way you do. Not a single solitary soul. You are nearly as bad as Ratzinger himself in your attempts to defend his every word, while condemining the sedes and calling them insane. The level of blindness is unfathomable.
You seem to think the very concept of anti-Christ is insane or crackpot material. Do you want to put St. Paul or St. John on trial next? Whether you realize it or not, you are not only attempting to bury the truth, but to deliver the death-blow to all common sense as well as to language ( words don't mean what they say, etc. ).
It's really simple.
Exhibit A: The Jews reject Christ. That is why they are spoken of as "Jews" instead of as Christians in this book. If they had converted, they wouldn't be speaking of them as Jews here. Copy that?
The Jews are said to be waiting for a Messiah, and not in vain. As seen in Exhibit A, they reject Christ. Ergo, Christ is not the Messiah spoken of here. Copy that?
You say they are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ rather than an anti-Christ type of Messiah. This is embarrassing and shameless on two levels:
( 1 ) The Christ who comes the second time is the same one who came the first time. You don't get saved by the second coming while rejecting the first. Not to mention, as gladius points out, He comes back the second time as wrathful judge. Heard of the Dies Irae?
If you are so completely ignorant of Catholic theology that you are actually trying to put it out there that Jews who reject Christ's first coming can be saved by His second coming, you need to stop talking and cease humiliating yourself. You are not even at the level of the average trad catechumen. Christ does not come the second time to save anyone, that work was already done on the Cross. He comes back to punish those who reject His salvific work on the Cross, through disbelief or rebellion.
What you are saying is that they are unconsciously waiting for the same God they have already rejected, and as soon as they see Him a second time they'll convert. But don't you see, it's too late to convert at that point. God does not come back to say "Hey, guys, I know I came and did these miracles and suffered and died and was resurrected, and you still didn't believe, worse, you screamed for my blood, but this time I'm gonna show you something that's REALLY cool, I'm hoping you'll like it and maybe give me a chance!" He comes back to get vengeance on those who disdained His incarnation as the man-God.
( 2 ) If what you're saying is correct -- though it's galling to say that even for the purpose of a hypothesis, considering you're not even in the ballpark of rational discourse -- then the Jews won't be saved until the Second Coming. Therefore, by not trying to convert the Jews, we're condemning all of them except that last batch at the last moment of time to almost certain damnation. Or does the Second Coming somehow retroactively save all Jews?
I don't even know why I bother to respond, sometimes you just have to walk away.
-
StevusMagnus said:
You would figure them all either complete idiots or insane fools who don't even realize the meaning of "Messiah" or else believe Jesus was not the Messiah! Do you realize what you are saying? That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology?
Do you think JPII, who rose to the rank of supposed "Pope," who spoke seven languages or more, was so absolutely stupid that he didn't know what he was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"?
No one ever said they were stupid. I said they were heretics and Judaizers, as could not possibly be more obvious.
What does possessing knowledge of theology have to do with being a heretic? You don't think some of the Monophysites or Arians sounded intelligent and like they knew a lot about theology? You think heretics just go out there and say "Gaaaahhh, I love Satan"? Would that make a strong enough case against them for you? I doubt it, you'd say "By Satan he means Lucifer before he fell, when he was the brightest angel in heaven."
-
That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology? You would turn him into a blubbering idiot to explain away his "obviously" false statements.
Actually, that is the essence of Bp W's and others' idea -- he is not mentally capable of being a heretic. I would not go that route, as it is contrary to reason, evidence, and justice.
I think he knows the precise meaning of what he says, and that he says what he means. It is his apologists, yourself included, who imitate pretzels as they try to explain away the latest nonsense.
So, if he knows what Messias means, and knows what 'wait', 'in vain', etc., mean, where does that leave you as you stumble in the dark, explaining away his real meaning?
The most favorable interpretation possible is this: "Yeah, the Messias is coming all right...coming to destroy your blind, heard-hearted asses, pulverizing your perfidious souls for all eternity!" Does this interpretation make you feel better?
-
Do you think JPII, who rose to the rank of supposed "Pope," who spoke seven languages or more, was so absolutely stupid that he didn't know what he was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"?
Are you stupid, Mike? Don't you know the way libs use "revoked" in a double-meaning kind of way? :laugh2: Or maybe it is "old" that provides the hermeneutical skeleton key?
No one ever said they were stupid.
Well, some of their apologists claim they do not have the mental ability to be heretics (which makes one wonder how they can hold the Faith, either).
-
Do you realize what you are saying? That Joseph Ratzinger, who without dispute possesses a high degree of intelligence, would be so absolutely stupid as to not even recognize what Messiah means in Catholic theology?
This is the essence of the R & R position -- he just doesn't know what he is saying.
While no one expects you to concede anything, you just told us you believe that these Modernists know the meaning of what they are saying. That is all SVs are saying, too.
-
Raoul,
Not a single solitary soul has EVER interpreted that line to mean what I said? REALLY?
Has ANYONE (besides you and GV and other Sedes) interpreted that line to mean BXVI doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? PLEASE give me one example of anyone in their right mind claiming this.
Unless you are a blind idiot you would recognize I'm not defending the Pope's "every word". I'm simply pointing out to you what he said and pointing out your interpretation of what he said is absolutely ridiculous as it flies in the face of all of the evidence. The Pope has repeatedly referred to Christ as the Messiah. So saying he went suddenly dumb and converted to Judaism before that sentence and then reconverted afterwards is the heighth of illogical stupidity.
I think the concept of anti-Christ is crackpot material? SERIOUSLY? Because I disagree BXVI believes the anti-Christ will be the messiah?
I suppose this is consistent with Sede thinking. If someone disagrees with you on a sub point simply assume he denies the overriding concept altogether!
I am trying to deliver the "death blow" to language? That words don't mean what they say? Do you even read what I write or do you take 2 seconds to skim it, form an absolutist caricature of it, and then blather out 6 paragraphs of arguments refuting strawmen?
If you actually read what I wrote and have any capability to make distinctions whatsoever, you will see that I am explaining to you the way the EcuмENISTS distort language and use double meanings and ambiguity. This is nothing new, they've done it for years. They did it in Vatican II and the New Mass. Your mistake is denying the ambiguity, interpreting it in the worst way possible and then admitting of NO other interpretation, and as proof someone is a heretic.
Do you really think thousands of pre-VCII Bishops would sign off on VCII docuмents that were clearly and obviously heretical? Of course not! That was the trick and the swindle. The liberals wrote genericisms that mean different things to different people, promised a Catholic interpretation and then pulled the bait and switch. By your standards every Bishop who signed a VCII docuмent is a heretic.
Exhibit A: The Jews reject Christ. That is why they are spoken of as "Jews" instead of as Christians in this book. If they had converted, they wouldn't be speaking of them as Jews here.
Agreed.
The Jews are said to be waiting for a Messiah, and not in vain. As seen in Exhibit A, they reject Christ. Ergo, Christ is not the Messiah spoken of here. Copy that?
Copy.
You say they are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ rather than an anti-Christ type of Messiah. This is embarrassing and shameless on two levels:
WRONG! :fryingpan:
This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.
( 1 ) The Christ who comes the second time is the same one who came the first time. You don't get saved by the second coming while rejecting the first. Not to mention, as gladius points out, He comes back the second time as wrathful judge. Heard of the Dies Irae?
No sh*t.
If you are so completely ignorant of Catholic theology that you are actually trying to put it out there that Jews who reject Christ's first coming can be saved by His second coming, you need to stop talking and cease humiliating yourself. You are not even at the level of the average trad catechumen. Christ does not come the second time to save anyone, that work was already done on the Cross. He comes back to punish those who reject His salvific work on the Cross, through disbelief or rebellion.
No sh*t.
What you are saying is that they are unconsciously waiting for the same God they have already rejected, and as soon as they see Him a second time they'll convert. But don't you see, it's too late to convert at that point. God does not come back to say "Hey, guys, I know I came and did these miracles and suffered and died and was resurrected, and you still didn't believe, worse, you screamed for my blood, but this time I'm gonna show you something that's REALLY cool, I'm hoping you'll like it and maybe give me a chance!" He comes back to get vengeance on those who disdained His incarnation as the man-God.
What?? When the Hell did I say that? I have no freaking clue when the Jews with convert en masse as the Bible predicts. I never said anything you just recited.
( 2 ) If what you're saying is correct -- though it's galling to say that even for the purpose of a hypothesis, considering you're not even in the ballpark of rational discourse -- then the Jews won't be saved until the Second Coming. Therefore, by not trying to convert the Jews, we're condemning all of them except that last batch at the last moment of time to almost certain damnation. Or does the Second Coming somehow retroactively save all Jews?
You must be on acid. I'm all for trying to convert EVERY SOUL here and now to Jesus Christ.
I don't even know why I bother to respond, sometimes you just have to walk away.
If you are going to take the time to respond, then at least take the time to READ WHAT I WROTE and comprehend what I'm saying as you have just wasted precious time responding to positions I don't even hold!
-
Has ANYONE (besides you and GV and other Sedes) interpreted that line to mean BXVI doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? PLEASE give me one example of anyone in their right mind claiming this.
FWIW, I do not claim those with whom I disagree are not in their "right mind" -- that is a tactic of stevus, legal counsel for the soon-to-be-incarcerated.
-
You are the dense one, amigo. To say "this" sense, you are using a word that indicates the singular, yet you openly admit it really represents the plural. Your refuse to see what is right in front of your face.
You've answered my question. You are not only dense
you have zero reading comprehension.
Have you not yet figured out, this is what liberals do?
I know very well what they do. I just don't play into it like a dope. You do.
You don't have a clue what they do. You are not even playing the game. You don't even understand the game. You are on the outside in your own reality. Don't worry. Just leave the crisis to the Trads who know the enemy and they'll carry on the fight alone.
-
Not a single solitary soul has EVER interpreted that line to mean what I said? REALLY?
Any evidence to the contrary, from sources remotely acceptable to all present?
Did the SSPX, or Cath Fam News, etc., interpret it that way?
You applied the singular form to a plural meaning. Can you explain this?
-
Do you think JPII, who rose to the rank of supposed "Pope," who spoke seven languages or more, was so absolutely stupid that he didn't know what he was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"?
Of course he knew what he was saying. He was saying it had never been revoked and he was right. It had been FULFILLED. It no longer exists but that was not done by revocation! Sneaky ain't he?
Ecuмenists play word games! I'm not sure how many ways I can explain this to you. It is public relations, "politics",
"political correctness", "ecuмenical sensitivity", whatever you want to call it.
The post-VCII Popes speak like politicians trying to please everybody. This is where we should criticize them; on their misleading and ambiguous statements and their "significant silence". This is where the credible arguments against them are.
Not taking an ambiguous statement, insisting against reality it has only ONE POSSIBLE interpretation that is DEFINITELY heretical and then drawing extreme and insane conclusions from it. That is Dimond territory and is why they are written off as kook-nutters and have zero influence or credibility.
-
StevusMagnus said:
WRONG!
This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.
StevusMagnus said:
Are you dense? The Jews expect the Messiah to come for the first time. They are wrong in this specific expectation because He already came.
Yet He, the Messiah, is coming for a second time. Thus, in this sense, we are ALL waiting for the Messiah.
Ah, crystal-clear now. So they think they are waiting for the first coming of the Messiah, who is not Jesus, but are really waiting for the Second Coming of the Messiah, who is Jesus...
Of course, that doesn't change anything, because ultimately, the way you interpret this line, the Jews are still waiting for the Second Coming without knowing that's what they're waiting for. That was the silly interpretation of the line about "Jєωιѕн messianic expectation" not being in vain that I attacked in the post you are responding to.
Now you're trying to make it look like you never said that the book said the Jews were waiting for the Second Coming, but you did, as I just proved in the quotes above.
The reason you are saying that is because you have no other possible explanation of this line. That is because the real meaning of the line is obvious. So first you grasp at straws, then when that doesn't work, you play with words and create confusion. Now the whole thread is lost in a fog, which always seems to happen when you're around... Hmmm.
If I were you, I'd really leave off using the aggressive icons that show you beating some sense into me. Like I said, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
-
Not a single solitary soul has EVER interpreted that line to mean what I said? REALLY?
Any evidence to the contrary, from sources remotely acceptable to all present?
Did the SSPX, or Cath Fam News, etc., interpret it that way?
You applied the singular form to a plural meaning. Can you explain this?
First of all, the quote is from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, not from BXVI. And when it was published Cardinal Ratzinger was not even Pope yet! (I should have known better than to take your word for it and not ask for context.)
Furthermore, the Commission itself explains it in the way I did!
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html
Insistence on discontinuity between both Testaments and going beyond former perspectives should not, however, lead to a one-sided spiritualisation. What has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. The definitive fulfilment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jєωιѕн messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.
The Commission is CLEARLY referring to the SECOND COMING. In THAT sense both Catholics and Jews are "waiting" for the Messiah.
It is their "clever" attempt to find "common ground" through playing with words. It is assinine, but it is NOT some ridiculous denial of Christ as Messiah, or espousing a belief in the anti-Christ, or whatever other ridiculous tripe you and Raoul try to turn it into to fit your assumed premise that BXVI is not Pope.
-
StevusMagnus said:
WRONG!
This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.
StevusMagnus then said:
The Commission is CLEARLY referring to the SECOND COMING. In THAT sense both Catholics and Jews are "waiting" for the Messiah.
Yeah, it's real clear when, on the same afternoon, you say the exact opposite of what you had said earlier.
Keep this up and you might get elected the next "Pope"!
-
Of course, that doesn't change anything, because ultimately, the way you interpret this line, the Jews are still waiting for the Second Coming without knowing that's what they're waiting for. That was the fallacy that I attacked in the post you are responding to.
It's the way the Commission MEANT this line. It is not my "interpretation". It is crystal clear from the context.
Yes, the Jews are waiting for the Messiah's first arrival while we wait for the second. What is so hard to understand about that?
Now you're trying to make it look like you never said that Ratzinger said the Jews were waiting for the Second Coming, but you did, as I just proved in the quotes above.
First of all, Ratzinger never even said it. Secondly, I said that in reality the Jews are waiting for the Second Coming, though they mistakenly believe it will be the first. Regardless they are waiting for the Messiah and it will not be in vain because He will indeed come (just not in the manner they expect).
The reason you are saying that is because you have no other possible explanation of this line. That is because the real meaning of the line is obvious. So first you grasp at straws, then when that doesn't work, you play with words and create confusion.
Are you going to eat your words now that I've linked to and quoted the line we are referring to and they OBVIOUSLY were referring to the second coming? But yet you say the OBVIOUS meaning is that the Pope denies Christ as the Messiah? If not. you've lost all crediblity.
-
StevusMagnus said:
Has ANYONE (besides you and GV and other Sedes) interpreted that line to mean BXVI doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah? PLEASE give me one example of anyone in their right mind claiming this.
That is a conclusion logically drawn from the premise. The premise is that, if the Jєωιѕн wait for the Messiah is not in vain, then Christ is not the Messiah, since one does not need to "wait" for Christ. He already came, you see.
What do you think JPII was saying when he said "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"? Why do you think they've turned the h0Ɩ0cαųst into a point of dogma? Why do they visit ѕуηαgσgυєs? Why are they having some kind of faux-Seder in my local Novus Ordo church? Why are rabbis invited to speak at Novus Ordo schools and churches? Why did JPII visit the wailing wall? Etc. etc. etc.
Are you the last one to know these are Judaizers? Yes, many people have taken this sentence to mean that the Church has changed its position on the Jews. For instance, the Anti-Defamation League:
"In November 1980, Pope John Paul II, speaking in Mainz, Germany, affirmed that Jews are the people "of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." He called Jews "the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses." In 2000, the pontiff stood on Mount Sinai and took note of the moment, stating, "But now on the heights of Sinai, this same God seals His love by making the covenant that He will never renounce."
The Pope's powerful statements helped the nascent Jєωιѕн-Catholic dialogue develop a sense of trust and honesty.
Additional church docuмents and statements deepened the relationship. In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued the report "The Jєωιѕн People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible," which talks of the permanent election of the Jєωιѕн people and suggests that its "Jєωιѕн messianic expectation is not in vain." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, played an important role in producing this work.
StevusMagnus said:
"The Pope has repeatedly referred to Christ as the Messiah."
Yes, Modernists mix truth with error. One day they say something orthodox, then the next something that is far from it. Sorry but we have to keep you behind a year, start your studies afresh with Pascendi Domenici Gregis.
StevusMagnus said:
Your mistake is denying the ambiguity, interpreting it in the worst way possible and then admitting of NO other interpretation, and as proof someone is a heretic.
Your mistake is in thinking that the Catholic Church can be ambiguous on matters of faith and morals. Another mistake is thinking that these men have somehow carefully avoided heresy, that they are too ambiguous to be heretical, when post-VII bulls are riddled with heresies, and when we have heard these men utter heresies with their very lips, not to mention that they are proven Judaizers.
StevusMagnus said:
Do you really think thousands of pre-VCII Bishops would sign off on VCII docuмents that were clearly and obviously heretical? Of course not! That was the trick and the swindle.
Thousands of "bishops" now go right along with Vatican II, and feel no need to be part of your precious Society, let alone to be sedes. Try to wrap your head around that one, if you want to play the numbers game.
The VII heresies are not as obvious as later ones, such as the Joint Declaration on Justification. But they are in there. I'd say the remaining orthodox bishops at Vatican II simply could not believe what they were seeing, they assumed there must be some other interpretation of certain heresies in the VII docuмents. But the controversy was always there, always swirling, whether you call them heresies or errors, both are impossible from a true Council of the Catholic Church.
StevusMagnus said:
"You must be on acid. I'm all for trying to convert EVERY SOUL here and now to Jesus Christ."
That's nice, you must be a sophist who can't admit he's wrong, therefore loses badly in debates, and has to resort to name-calling.
What I'm pointing out is that Ratzinger is in no hurry to convert the Jews, because both his predescessor said OUTRIGHT that the Jews can be saved without Christ, and Ratzinger, by supporting this book of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, more than implies he has the same mindset. Therefore, I drew a connection between his recent piece of trash book and this essay from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, a connection that is very solid.
-
StevusMagnus said:
WRONG!
This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.
StevusMagnus then said:
The Commission is CLEARLY referring to the SECOND COMING. In THAT sense both Catholics and Jews are "waiting" for the Messiah.
Yeah, it's real clear when, on the same afternoon, you say the exact opposite of what you had said earlier.
Keep this up and you might get elected the next "Pope"!
EXHIBIT A offered as proof that you are either:
1.) Extremely dense.
2.) An idiot.
3.) Have no ability to comprehend English.
4.) Smart enough to understand what I'm saying, but deliberately acting obtuse.
If 1, 2, or 3 are the case. Please re-read my statements slowly until they click.
Or better yet, let me take the bait and break it down for you.
COMMISSION SAYS: We wait for SECOND COMING. Jews wait for what THEY THINK is First Coming. We are both waiting for the MESSIAH. They are NOT waiting in vain because the one and only MESSIAH IS COMING. They simply don't realize it will be Jesus Christ coming AGAIN.
Get it? If not, I can't help you. Either give up or take reading comprehension classes.
-
StevusMagnus said:
WRONG!
This is not at ALL what I'm saying. They are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the FIRST time. They do not believe Christ is the Messiah.
StevusMagnus then said:
The Commission is CLEARLY referring to the SECOND COMING. In THAT sense both Catholics and Jews are "waiting" for the Messiah.
Yeah, it's real clear when, on the same afternoon, you say the exact opposite of what you had said earlier.
Keep this up and you might get elected the next "Pope"!
In the first quote "they" refers to the Jews. This is obvious from the context you ripped it out of.
Then again I shouldn't be surprised as you claimed BXVI made this statement when a Commission made the statement before Ratzinger was even Pope!
What else have you got wrong?
-
StevusMagnus said:
Yes, the Jews are waiting for the Messiah's first arrival while we wait for the second. What is so hard to understand about that?
So the book is playing a winking joke on the Jews, like "You think you're waiting for your Messiah, but what's really gonna happen is that the true Messiah will come down and smite you"? And then Ratzinger later says that we shouldn't try to convert them?
Sheesh, it turns out Ratzinger is like a spiritual Hitler, leading them to their eternal deaths! Who knew? Stevus, you truly are a genius.
The problem is, once again, you're burned, because the book says "the Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain." The Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not for Christ, is it? Try to read the words carefully -- THEIR expectation for THEIR Messiah, not for a Messiah. Expectation for Christ would be OUR Messianic expectation, capiche? What you are trying to do is blur the two expectations, or to say that the book was blurring them. But it can't be done. They can't be said to expect a Messiah that they don't want and that they have already rejected.
What is so hard for you to understand that proven Judaizers could easily be Satanists and attempting to construct a bridge to anti-Christ? Even if you somehow find a loophole for this statement from the Pontifical Biblical Commission's book, that doesn't change other heresies, as well as many actions and words that clearly point to Judaization.
-
First of all, the quote is from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, not from BXVI. And when it was published Cardinal Ratzinger was not even Pope yet! (I should have known better than to take your word for it and not ask for context.)
That has nothing to do with it, which is why I pointed out Card. Ratz. could be a public heretic apart from what he has done as 'pontiff'.
FWIW, BXVI was the head of the PBC at the time and prefaced and signed it. No bullsh*t, remember?
Furthermore, the Commission itself explains it in the way I did!
Is this a point for or against you? IMO, harmony with the enemy is hardly a feather in your cap.
In THAT sense both Catholics and Jews are "waiting" for the Messiah.
THAT is still a singular term, yet you wish to apply it in a plural sense. No dice, amigo.
Forget the Pope issue for a moment, if you can. Do you understand it is impossible to apply singular terms in a way that is also plural?
-
Then again I shouldn't be surprised as you claimed BXVI made this statement when a Commission made the statement before Ratzinger was even Pope!
Who was the head of the Commission? Uh, that would have been...Card. Ratz!
HeL-Lo-O, McFly :fryingpan: NO ONE is pretending this happened AFTER BXVI usurped the throne! Wake up and smell the Drano, man...
-
Deleted; just repeating myself.
-
3.) Have no ability to comprehend English.
This is a LAUGHER, considering your propensity to apply SINGULAR terms in a way that can ONLY refer to a PLURAL meaning.
I admire your spunk, but you are wasting defending men who are not worthy of your time and energy.
-
Catholics do not have "Messianic expectation" for the Second Coming. We don't expect anything, because the Messiah has already come.
Not to discourage you, my friend, but I mentioned this multiple times; it does not seem to have registered.
-
First of all, the quote is from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, not from BXVI. And when it was published Cardinal Ratzinger was not even Pope yet! (I should have known better than to take your word for it and not ask for context.)
This is going to be embarrassing, but here is the quote from the post wherein this was first mentioned:
The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 2002 released a docuмent about the Jews and the Bible, prefaced and signed by then-"Cardinal" Ratzinger, where it said "the Jєωιѕн Messianic expectation is not in vain."
As you can see, I did not even bring it up, nor did Raoul pretend Card. Ratz. was Pope.
HeL-Lo-O, McFly!!! :fryingpan: Look, I can appreciate a little verbal rough-housing, but it is nice when those involved know WTF they are talking about.
-
Catholics do not have "Messianic expectation" for the Second Coming. We don't expect anything, because the Messiah has already come.
Not to discourage you, my friend, but I mentioned this multiple times; it does not seem to have registered.
Is Jesus Christ the Messiah?
Is He coming in the future?
Put two and two together.
I understand what you are saying. Obviously He is not coming the second time in the same way He came the first time. The Commission is trying to make the lame point that we are both waiting for the Messiah albeit with completely different understandings.
I'm honestly not sure why this is so hard to see as the Commission itself spells it out.
-
I'm honestly not sure why this is so hard to see as the Commission itself spells it out.
Does the Commission, or the V2 anti-Church in general, make it clear the Jews are waiting, for the Messias as foretold in Holy Writ, IN VAIN?
What good is an after-the-fact explanation, however "clear", when the Judaics have been told they are NOT waiting in vain for the Messias (an idea we know they will NOT understand as we do)?
All other nonsense aside, do you agree these statements give the Judaics a rather FALSE understanding of their present situation?
-
3.) Have no ability to comprehend English.
This is a LAUGHER, considering your propensity to apply SINGULAR terms in a way that can ONLY refer to a PLURAL meaning.
I admire your spunk, but you are wasting defending men who are not worthy of your time and energy.
I used what singular term to refer to what plural meaning?
Do you understand I'm demonstrating how liberals use singular terms for multiple meanings as a matter of course and that I'm not endorsing this?
Do you understand that taking your opponents words for what they actually say is not defending your opponent? In fact it is the first necessary step in refuting them. Otherwise you are creating a strawman.
-
I used what singular term to refer to what plural meaning?
You used "this" and "that" in a plural sense. Go over the last couple of pages if you need to -- it should not be too hard to locate.
Do you understand I'm demonstrating how liberals use singular terms for multiple meanings as a matter of course and that I'm not endorsing this?
I DO -- and I am more than ready to give credit where it is due.
Do you understand that taking your opponents words for what they actually say is not defending your opponent?
Of course. However, you seem to think I am NOT taking them for what they say. I see it differently; I am taking them for what they say, while you take them for what you want them to be saying.
Again, the BEST case scenario is that Card Ratx and the PBC were telling the Judaics that the Messias IS coming, but ONLY to SMASH their perfidious asses. What good is that?
-
All other nonsense aside, do you agree these statements give the Judaics a rather FALSE understanding of their present situation?
Of course! That's the whole point. The Commission and ecuмenists are playing word games trying to be nicey, but reality stays the same. The Church teaching on salvation remains and this Commission changed nothing of it. It's all fluff.
-
My paragraphs were separated by a line and meant to be read indepenently of each other. In "this sense" refers to the immediately preceding sentence.
The Commission does not see Christ coming back to smite them because they see the Jєωιѕн nation will already be converted en masse before Christ comes again. Thus when He returns, they will be converted and He will be their Messiah in the true sense.
-
The V2 anti-Church takes this as a dogmatic matter. Fluff or not, souls are being led astray by following what purports to be the Bride of Christ.
As for your sig quote, do you not see how the V2 cult of personality could also be its fulfillment? I do NOT think the Pope needs to be a Saint, nor that all he says needs to be mega. He could have concubines out the wazoo for all I care, but I don't think the Bride of Christ can use her teaching authority (infallibly or otherwise) to lead souls to perdition, which the V2 anti-Church is surely doing.
-
My paragraphs were separated by a line and meant to be read indepenently of each other. In "this sense" refers to the immediately preceding sentence.
The Commission does not see Christ coming back to smite them because they see the Jєωιѕн nation will already be converted en masse before Christ comes again. Thus when He returns, they will be converted and He will be their Messiah in the true sense.
A fine cover. What good will it do for those individuals alive NOW, should they not live to see the conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation?
-
First, 90% of Catholics and 99% of non-Catholics could give a crap what the Vatican says anyway as they have lost all relevance issuing boring pablum statements for the last 50 years.
The only ones who even pay attention to what the Vatican and Popes say are the Neo-Caths who treat him and the Vatican as a god.
I do not think the official Church takes this as a dogmatic matter because they are at their core opposed to dogma and dogmatic definitions. They want everything to be malleable and subject to reinterpretation. So their aversion to dogma ironically prevents them from defining error. In my opinion this is God guarding the indefectability of the Church. These Popes and Commisions say a lot of meaningless crap, but none of it is dogmatic or being imposed as obligatory.
I have always found Fr. Le Floch's quote prophetic. I believe this Crisis may have been allowed precisely to have the Church, in the future, define the limits to Papal infallibility and right the ship from VCI. After VCI Catholics began to place all trust in the Pope and see him as almost inerrant in all respects because we had such great Popes after VCI and VCI stressed Papal authority. Catholics, buying into this "heresy" as Fr. Le Floch put it, were set up for the Crisis. Look at all of the Pre-VCII Bishops, a vast majority orthodox, who caved in to a lot of the ambiguous VCII docuмents after the Pope expressed his wishes. Look at all of these great orthodox prelates and priests who "obeyed" the Pope and shut their mouths after VCII. This was all a result of the problem Fr. Le Floch speaks of. The Pope had become a King who had absolute power. It was the Devil's preparation for the Crisis. Using an overinflated respect and obedience to the Pope to cause the destruction of Faith. The cure to this crisis, I believe, will be a return to the proper understanding of the Papacy subordinate to the Faith.
Ironically the liberal Popes despise their own authority and never use it, except in disciplinary matters to "keep the peace".
-
My paragraphs were separated by a line and meant to be read indepenently of each other. In "this sense" refers to the immediately preceding sentence.
The Commission does not see Christ coming back to smite them because they see the Jєωιѕн nation will already be converted en masse before Christ comes again. Thus when He returns, they will be converted and He will be their Messiah in the true sense.
A fine cover. What good will it do for those individuals alive NOW, should they not live to see the conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation?
BXVI basically says that is in God's hands because He has foreseen the great majority of them will not convert until the end times anyway. So has God damned them all to Hell because of this prophecy? BXVI most likely will say no. The Jews now will be judged on what they know and will either be saved as a result of invincible ignorance or damned. That's my best guess as to his view. But who knows!
-
Not to beat a long-dead, thoroughly-rotten horse, but you do know ignorance, invincible or otherwise, does not do anything POSITIVE for anyone, right?
-
Lord knows what nickname I will get next, but I cracked up when I saw you are "The Jew", stevus! :laugh2:
-
In my opinion this is God guarding the indefectability of the Church.
I totally understand where this idea is coming from, although I disagree with it. As I said, it is part of justice to give credit where it is due. On top of that, I am a Libra, the sign for which is the scales -- justice and a balanced take are part of my nature.
You may think sedes, et alii, are "nuts", but you would be stunned if you met some of us and talked at length, especially to those who have been around for a while. The "the other side is nuts" crap is part of the desired antagonism of the infiltrators. Do not fall for it, even if you never agree with me on certain specifics.
-
I have always found Fr. Le Floch's quote prophetic. I believe this Crisis may have been allowed precisely to have the Church, in the future, define the limits to Papal infallibility and right the ship from VCI. After VCI Catholics began to place all trust in the Pope and see him as almost inerrant in all respects because we had such great Popes after VCI and VCI stressed Papal authority. Catholics, buying into this "heresy" as Fr. Le Floch put it, were set up for the Crisis. Look at all of the Pre-VCII Bishops, a vast majority orthodox, who caved in to a lot of the ambiguous VCII docuмents after the Pope expressed his wishes. Look at all of these great orthodox prelates and priests who "obeyed" the Pope and shut their mouths after VCII. This was all a result of the problem Fr. Le Floch speaks of. The Pope had become a King who had absolute power. It was the Devil's preparation for the Crisis. Using an overinflated respect and obedience to the Pope to cause the destruction of Faith. The cure to this crisis, I believe, will be a return to the proper understanding of the Papacy subordinate to the Faith.
Stevus, you've pointed one of the major problems with the Neo-Catholic position and approach to the faith. Hugh of Pisa, an influential canonist/theologian and teacher to Pope Innocent III may have foreseen this Neo-Catholic position centuries ago: "If the pope were a heretic...simpletons and idiots would follow the heresy with ease because they would believe it not to be a heresy" (Summa ad Decretum Gratiani).
-
Caraffa,
You are the master of finding these gems.
Can you give me a cite or link to that?
Thanks!
-
Not to beat a long-dead, thoroughly-rotten horse, but you do know ignorance, invincible or otherwise, does not do anything POSITIVE for anyone, right?
What do you mean by "positive"?
It allows for a chance at salvation, I'd say that is pretty positive. The alternative is certainty of Hell. One would still have to live a moral life though, according to one's conscience.
-
Ignorance is the lack of a due good...knowledge. It is no more positive than blindness...which is also a lack of a due good...sight.
Ignorance can NEVER do anything for anyone, although it MAY, in some cases, prevent a man from being guilty of a crime he did not KNOW was a crime.
-
Ignorance is the lack of a due good...knowledge. It is no more positive than blindness...which is also a lack of a due good...sight.
Ignorance can NEVER do anything for anyone, although it MAY, in some cases, prevent a man from being guilty of a crime he did not KNOW was a crime.
How is this relevant?
-
I think every Catholic should be able to agree that today's Jews wait in vain for their Messiah.
If you try to twist the Pope's statement to mean that "they are waiting for Christ but don't know it" - then they are still waiting in vain - because they're not going to be rewarded for rejecting Christ.
-
Caraffa,
You are the master of finding these gems.
Can you give me a cite or link to that?
Thanks!
I may not have a link, but I have the original Latin. Hugh (or Huguccio) is commenting on Gratian's Decretum, Distinction 40, canon 6.
In Latin: "Quia si papa esset hereticus non sibi soli noceret sed toti mundo, praesertim quia simplices et idiote facile sequerentur illam heresim cuм crederent non esse heresim."
-
Tele,
You are thinking like a Catholic. Of course they wait in vain, in the sense of salvation, because the Messiah already came for that purpose. We all know this.
The Congregation is saying they do not wait in vain in the sense that their Messiah IS indeed coming. Just not who they expect or for the purpose they expect. What these ecuмenical statements deliberately leave out is precisely the "significant silence" Vennari pointed out.