The text below is derived in large part from the transcript of one my recent videos, along with additional content taken from a follow-up blog post.
I offer this complete treatment here for the benefit of those who as yet are unable to see that the Second Vatican Council, contrary to the insistence of the post-conciliar popes, cannot be considered an integral part of the tradition of the Church.
In fact, as the treatment below demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Council is guilty of contradicting the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles.
Please consider passing this along to any such person of good will who might, with the aid of God’s grace, have their eyes opened.
As for those who are unwilling to see; those we cannot help.
Nostra Aetate and Ephesians 2
In St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, he writes:
Remember that at one time you Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. (Eph. 2:11-16)
Who is the “us” to whom St. Paul refers when he says that Christ made us both one?
Clearly, he’s speaking of believing Jews, like himself, and the Gentile believers in Christ; he’s affirming that both are now one people, in one body, through the Cross.
And how does this happen?
Through Baptism, of course.
As such, St. Paul wrote to the Galatians:
For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free; male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:27-28)
Indeed, Baptism is precisely how those once separated from God and one another become one people in Christ.
As for those who reject Christ and refuse to enter that “one body” through the waters of Baptism, such persons cannot somehow be one people of God with the believers in Christ in that body.
This is just common sense, of course.
Even so, Our Blessed Lord removed all doubt on this point when He said:
He who rejects me rejects him who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
The unbelieving Jews who reject Christ (just as the Gentiles who reject Him), therefore, are not reconciled to God with the children of the Church, in one body, through the cross, to draw from the words of St. Paul.
This is Catholicism 101, and yet, the Council Fathers of Vatican II, in the document Nostra Aetate, undermine even this most basic of teachings.
Before we get to the specific conciliar text in question, we must first be clear about the intention of this document and what it is proposing to teach.
Nostra Aetate means “in our time;” it comes from the first line of the document which reads:
In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. (NA 1)
So, in other words, when the Council speaks therein about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, it’s very specifically addressing the Church’s relationship with these peoples such as it is “in our time.”
Once again; this is obvious enough.
In the article concerning the Jews, Nostra Aetate – Article 4, the Council states its specific purpose, saying:
As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.
Don’t gloss over this!
The Council is making it clear that what follows in the text addresses the relationship between two distinct groups; the people of the new covenant (i.e., the Baptized) on the one hand, and the Jews (a group that they identify as “Abraham’s stock”) on the other.
Clearly, both groups are not numbered among the baptized.
“Abraham’s stock,” of course, refers to those Jews in our time who persist to behave as if the “law of ordinances” has yet to be “abolished” by Christ in His flesh, to quote St. Paul once more.
To be very certain, if indeed the Council is about to address, in the treatment to follow, only those numbered among the baptized (be they either Gentile or Jew), then all concerned would be “the people of the New Covenant;” i.e., there would be but one group of which to speak!
This much, once more, is quite obvious, but it’s very important to bear this in mind as we now consider what the Council goes on to say of the relationship between the children of the Church and the Jews in our time; i.e., those who as yet still reject Christ and refuse the offer of Baptism.
The Council states:
Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross, Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.
Now, ask yourself, is it true that Christ, by His Cross, reconciled the Jews in our time with the Gentiles, “making both one in Himself?”
Well, of course not.
The only way this can happen, is how?
Through Baptism, wherein there is neither Jew nor Greek, etc…
The Jews in our time are quite pleased to be defined by their rejection of Christ! They look upon His Cross as mere folly. They steadfastly refuse Baptism.
The Jews “in our time” of which Nostra Aetate speaks, therefore, can in no way be confused with Jewish believers in Christ, like St. Paul, who wrote to the Ephesians about how they have become one with the Gentile believers in Christ in His Cross.
And yet, in setting forth the utterly illogical notion that “the people of the New Covenant” are somehow one in Christ with those who reject Him, guess what the Council Fathers use as a reference in support of this baseless innovation:
You guessed it; the very passage from Ephesians 2 that we just reviewed!
Nothing could be more painful to acknowledge; the Council misappropriated Sacred Scripture to promote a novelty that is irreconcilable, not just with common sense, but with the very words of Jesus Christ who said, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me…”
Some well-intentioned, naïve souls might parse the Council’s words in an effort to demonstrate that this portion of the document really does mean, in spite of its clearly stated purpose, to speak only of those among “Abraham’s stock” who are baptized, just as St. Paul did, and that is why Ephesians 2 is referenced.
Even though this theory defies logic in the extreme, rather than dismiss the idea out of hand, let’s take a look at how the conciliar proposition set forth in Nostra Aetate has been officially applied and implemented since the Council.
Now, please note; I very deliberately did not say that we must look to see how Nostra Aetate has been interpreted since the Council.
We’re not seeking an interpretation, properly speaking.
Simply because what the Council actually said is quite clear.
We must avoid the temptation to overlook the actual text in an effort to shoehorn a faithful “interpretation” that runs contrary to the statements made by the Council itself.
That said, looking to see how the conciliar proposition has been applied in the life of the Church through her official organs will either confirm, or challenge, the conclusions I’ve drawn here.
You see, if indeed the Council is guilty of little more than just a bit of clumsiness, we should find the official voice of the Church echoing the words of Christ, and saying much the same things that St. Peter said on the day of Pentecost; addressing the Jewish people as those who have rejected their God and urging them to Baptism.
If, on the other hand, the Council really did put forth an egregious error that proposes to say that the Jews “in our time” are one with the people of the New Covenant in spite of their having rejected Jesus Christ and His Cross, well, we should find the official voices of the Church echoing that idea instead.
So, which is it?
I think you know the answer already, but bear with me…
In 2012, Cardinal Kurt Koch, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, gave an address on the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate in which he called the decree “the foundation document” and the “Magna Charta” of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism.
This address can hardly be dismissed as lacking substance, coming as it does from the man hand chosen by the pope to represent the Church in her relations with the Jews, and who has received the affirmation, as of this writing, of two popes; Benedict XVI and Francis.
His words are, therefore, without any question whatsoever, an accurate representation of the official meaning and application of the conciliar text in question.
In reference to the very portion of Nostra Aetate under discussion here, Cardinal Koch stated:
The concept of two parallel paths of salvation would in the least call into question or even endanger the fundamental understanding of the Second Vatican Council that Jews and Christians do not belong to two different peoples of God, but that they form one people of God.
Did you get that?
Cardinal Koch plainly acknowledged and confirmed precisely what has been laid out so carefully here; Vatican Council II set forth a “fundamental understanding” that the Jews of today who reject Jesus Christ, along with Christians, “form one people of God.”
This in spite of the fact Jesus Christ Himself said that He who rejects Him rejects God!
Cardinal Koch went on to say:
It does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.
This, my friends, is where Nostra Aetate leads when one simply accepts Vatican Council II as an integral part of the tradition of the Church (a proposition insisted upon repeatedly by all of the post-conciliar popes as the price for “full communion”); it leads to a position wherein faith in Jesus Christ isn’t necessary for “God’s salvation,” (as if there is any other).
The magnitude of this seismic shift away from what the Church has always and everywhere held to be true (i.e., immutable doctrine) is not lost on Cardinal Koch; on the contrary, he celebrates it, saying:
…one can without doubt dare to assert that Nostra Aetate is to be reckoned among those Council texts which have in a convincing manner been able to effect a fundamental re–orientation of the Catholic Church following the Council.
A fundamental re-orientation…
Every Catholic school child beyond the age of reason should know that such a thing is antithetical to Catholic truth!
Cardinal Koch continued his assault on the Catholic faith:
Such a claim [that Jews are ‘excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ’] would find no support in the soteriological understanding of St Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people: “For the grace and call that God grants are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).
Once again, Sacred Scripture is being misappropriated to suit the innovation.
The question concerning the standing of the Jews vis-à-vis “God’s salvation” has never, properly speaking, been about whether or not God has repudiated His own people.
Of course God’s call is irrevocable; at least until such time as one departs from this life. So too is the offer of grace necessary to answer that call.
Oh, yea, then there’s that; the necessity of responding to God’s call – a truth that no one in the sacred hierarchy of today, taking Vatican Council II as their queue, seems willing to preach.
Where, oh where, are the intrepid evangelists of old who, like St. Peter, did not shy away from letting the Jews know, for their own good, that it is they who “repudiated” their own God?
Undaunted, Cardinal Koch takes up the weapon of phony Biblical citations once more as he continues:
That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9–11…
The sheer hubris of these people is positively stunning!
In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul states the exact opposite of what Cardinal Koch would have him say, making it plain that the Jews who reject Christ are “broken off” from the people of promise:
They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you [Gentile believers] stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. (Romans 11:20-23)
St. Paul’s words are clear; God did not spare the unbelieving Jews; they have been “cut off,” and “persisting in their unbelief” will effectively prevent their being “grafted in” once more.
It is important to note that the false doctrine being preached by Cardinal Koch is not entirely his own; he’s simply providing the official application of the tenets set forth in Nostra Aetate.
It is beyond any shred of reasonable doubt that the Council did in fact err in its treatment of the relationship between the Church and the Jews, in our time.
This, unfortunately, is but one of any number of conciliar texts that have brought about a massive loss of Catholic faith among clergy, religious and laity alike.
As such, I implore you, choose this day in whose words you will believe:
Will you believe the Second Vatican Council, or the Lord Jesus Christ; the conciliar “fundamental re-orientation,” or the immutable Catholic faith?
It’s not a very difficult choice, is it?
Indeed, the most difficult challenge for many is coming to terms with the simple fact that it cannot be both.
May the grace of Almighty God assist you in choosing well.
“…One can without doubt dare to assert that Nostra Aetate is to be reckoned among those Council texts which have in a convincing manner been able to effect a fundamental re–orientation of the Catholic Church following the Council.’ (that re-orientantion is a rejection of Baptism).
The LAST canonical Propthet proclaimed, “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi…” St John the Baptist = the Forerunner of Christ, the precurser of the long awaited Messiah, Moshiach. St John the BAPTISER…
“…[for] believing Jews, like himself, and the Gentile believers in Christ; he’s affirming that both are now one people, in one body, THROUGH THE CROSS. And how does this happen? Through Baptism…” [in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti].
Well done post, and extremely necessary. How many Catholics are blind to this must be in the millions.
If you will permit me, the late, great Jean Madiran gives a fascinating history of how all this came about which can be found at this link:
With every good wish for the coming Easter Season…
This is so clear an exposition. Thank you, Louie.
The bottom line is that a true Pope cannot teach error, nor can a Council in union with the Pope:
“… The Church cannot teach error, because She was founded by Jesus Christ, God Himself. He sent forth His Apostles with full powers to preach His Gospel. He said: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (St. John 20:21). “I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever…But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you” (St. John 14:16, 26).
By the infallibility of the Catholic Church is meant that the Church, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot err when it teaches or believes a doctrine of faith or morals.
Christ promised: “All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the Consummation of the world” (St. Matthew 28:26). If Christ is with the Church all days, it cannot err in teaching; it cannot lead men away from God.
… The Church cannot change its teachings on faith and morals. But it may restate the doctrines more clearly and completely as She did with the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception officially declared dogma by His Holiness Pope Pius IX and the Assumption by Pius XII as an article of faith. The infallible definition in each case was not a proclamation of a new doctrine, but was merely an announcement of an article of faith true from the very beginning, and publicly defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church. Prior to Vatican II, the Church proclaimed the same unchanging doctrines, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millennium after millennium. Her doctrines need no reform, for they are of Divine origin, the work of the Incarnate God. No Pope or general Council in almost two thousand years has annulled or revoked a single decree of faith or morals enacted by a previous Pope or Council. This is history.”
(Quote from http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jun/jun20cms.htm)
Vatican II has taught error – this post cites a prime example. The conciliar popes have taught error. So how can Vatican II be considered a true Council, or the conciliar popes be considered true Popes?
Louie pleese take the next step and complete the sentence:
“… In fact, as the treatment below demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever, the Council is guilty of contradicting the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles.” and it is therefore a false Council which must be anathema to all Catholics.
Because every statement made by a pope or council is not necessarily made invoking the charism of infallibility. Thus, if a pope or council can make non-infallible statements, such statements by definition are fallible and open to the possibility of error. The Church may one day render an official judgment regarding the status of Vatican II and the post conciliar popes, but we, as laity, have no authority from Christ to do so.
An excellent and eye-opening analysis, Mastro Louie.
I can only hazard to add — subject always to the correction of my betters since I never formally studied theology— a theological tool to analyze the problem, and that the concept between ‘act’ and ‘potency’.
In potency, in our age and times, the Christian and the Jew can be one in doctrine, creed, spirit and mystical body, but in actuality they are not.
The conciliar fathers who wrote and supported Nostra Aetate, with their periti, presuming their words oracular, confuse a thing ‘in potency’ from a thing ‘in act’, something only God —- and those legitimately under God’s authority in concept only — can unite in substance without confusion. The council fathers presumed to be oracular and divine. Sheer hubris, indeed!
On the grounds of this confusion, the promoters of the council had to invent the concept of ‘a new advent’ and ‘a new Pentecost.’ But where is this new advent? Where is this new Pentecost? In its place all we have is more confusion with more potential damage to souls.
It seems neither improper nor illicit to debate whether or not the council was at all blessed by God or, therefore, legitimately authorized.
If you’re right, Louie, and I believe you are, then Nostra Aetate is a dangerous document that cannot be salvaged in whole or in part, and, eventually — let us prayer sooner than later — the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church must declare it, in toto, anathema.
Koch says, as quoted above (emphases added): “That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9–11…”.
By contrast, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes as follows:
“According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (11:25-26): ‘For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob'”.
P.S.: The above quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia can be found here.
“Yet they are still the people he loves because he chose their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For God’s gifts and his call can never be withdrawn. Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the people of Israel rebelled against him, God was merciful to you instead. Now they are the rebels, and God’s mercy has come to you so that they, too, will share in God’s mercy. For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.
Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!
For who can know the L ord ’s thoughts?
Who knows enough to give him advice?”
Dear Louie and friends,
Yes-Baptism is what makes you a Christian. This article and salvemur ‘ss response reminded me of letter my brother recently gave me, which I’m sure he would not mind my sharing it with you all:
“Catholics in general lack any understanding of covenant theology. The basic idea of covenant is that God enters into a familial relationship with a people of His choosing. While essentially familial, the covenant includes duties and obligations of a legal nature as well. The covenant relationship is reciprocal -a two way street in that both parties have rights and obligations to the other. For example; God has a right to exclusive worship, and in return, His people have a right to His special protection.
What most Catholics today fail to understand is that the covenant relationship is not automatic. The covenant has to be entered into in order to obtain its benefits and acquire its obligations. Everyone who is born may have some sort of relationship with God by virtue of being one of His creatures, but no one is born a son of God. That adoption takes place through Baptism. Technically speaking, we are not “all sons of the same Father,” though we are certainly all creatures of the same Creator.
Catholics do not get this because they have been taught a Humanist rather than a Christian theology. I find that even solid respectable conservative traditional Catholics use loose phrases like: “The brotherhood of Man,” or “our (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc) brothers and sisters,” or “all of God’s children,” as if these were Christian ideas. They cannot conceive of anybody being outside the Church, they think everybody automatically becomes a member of God’s people by being born. [They cannot conceive of anyone being excluded from the Kingdom.] Whatever this idea is, it is not Christianity.
The lack of understanding of covenant theology has implications for Christian ethics as well. The rules God laid down for us, both those we received directly from Jesus Christ and those we inherited from the Jews, are rules for Our governance as God’s people. God says essentially: “This is how I want you Christians to live.” But the Humanistic Christian, lacking any concept of the group-specific covenant, takes these rules as a universal program to be imposed on everyone else. The mission of the Church, in their minds, becomes to make everyone else behave like a Christian, without actually inviting them into the Church first. (Since Humanity has become “the People of god” the Church has become superfluous.) It is fundamentally an unworkable plan doomed to failure. If you want people to live like Christians, then you have to invite them into the Christian covenant, where they will be obliged to do so. It is wholly unrealistic to expect pagans to adopt Christian values voluntarily, and why should they? They would need to be coerced harshly.
So the real mission of the Church, and the only one with any real chance of success is to make more Christians. The real “work of the Kingdom” is to sanctify those who are already in it, those who recognize Jesus as their King. Our only mission towards people of the world is to lead them out of it.”
“Go into the whole world and proclaim the good news to the whole of creation. The man who believes it and accepts baptism will be saved: the man who refuses to believe in it will be condemned.” (Mark 16:14) Sounds pretty clear to me. The post-conciliar church has shifted gears. The Church founded by Christ is based on Conversion. Since V2, it is based on ecumenism. Let us pray that the gears shift back where they belong—in our time! Thank you, Louie.
“My mother held to her (Jewish) faith to the very last. The faith and firm confidence she had in her God from her earliest childhood to her 87th year remained steadfast, and were the last things that stayed alive in her during the final difficult agony. Therefore, I have the firm belief that she found a very merciful judge and is now my most faithful helper on my way, so that I, too, may reach my goal.”
St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross
The Magisterium, whether Solemn, or Ordinary and Universal, is infallible and we Catholics are bound, under pain of sin, to acquiesce and submit to its teaching. That is not layman’s judgement, but Catholic Doctrine. Vatican II is promulgated as teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium:
“Most traditional Catholics know that Vatican II taught heresies and other errors. They rightly refuse to accept this false teaching. But when asked how it can be right to reject the teaching of a General Council of the Catholic Church, they reply that Vatican II was a special kind of council; it was non-dogmatic and non-infallible. As such it could err, and did err, and Catholics may reject its errors without doubting the legitimacy of the authority that promulgated those errors. They will often add that the promulgating authority – Paul VI – himself explicitly declared that his council was non-infallible and non-dogmatic.
This popular explanation rides rough-shod over Catholic doctrine and plain reality. The truth is that Vatican II so plainly fulfils the conditions required for infallibility that not even Paul VI ever dared to deny this. Hence if its teaching contains egregious errors against the faith, this fact necessarily calls into question the papal status of Paul VI himself.
To show that this is so, let us look more closely at the ways in which the Church infallibly teaches divine truth to her children.
Here is what the 1870 Vatican Council taught:
All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)” (1.)
Please note that Paul VI confirmed that Vatican II formed part of the Ordinary Magisterium during his Audience of 12 January, 1966 :
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogma [Solemn Magisterium] endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.” (1,2.)
“… If you accept Paul VI as a true pope, therefore, Vatican II is part of the universal ordinary magisterium. As a Catholic, you are then bound to adhere to it … Still not convinced? Here is the typical formula at the end of each Vatican II document: Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers.” (AAS 57 , 71)” (1.)
1. John S. Daly at: http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm
2. Mr. Michael Davies quoted in: http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm
Please thank your brother for these very insightful words, and thank you for sharing.
since the Council was Pastoral in Nature only.The Holy Ghost was NOT called upon for the purposes of guaranteeing Infallibility.Therefore,error could and did occur.So the Sedevacantist theory you propose does not apply.
Saints are not infallible.
mpoulin, I didn’t feel like reading the whole thing b/c it sounded like Scott Hahn stuff. Your brother is a Protestant?
In the very quote you provide, Paul VI says the council was pastoral and didn’t invoke infallibility.
Further, the “nature and aims” of the documents are what? Meandering ambiguous essays written the the language of the New Theology. The novelties therein contained are not part of the universal ordinary magisterium…universal means universal in time as well as location.
That the faithful should receive non-infallible novelties that contradict previous teachings with docility is ridiculous and itself a novelty! Notice Paul VI wasn’t speaking infallibly when he spoke those words.
Like I said, as laity we no authority from Christ to formally declare a pope not a pope or a council not a council. It is the Church’s place to render a judgment about their formal status or that of certain of their teachings where confusion or controversy reigns. To say otherwise, betrays a Protestant mindset, usurping the authority reserved to the Church.
As for the doctrinal character of Vatican II, did *all* of its teaching fall under the Ordinary Magisterium? I don’t read your citation as demonstratively concluding to that interpretation. There are a number of council fathers on record as saying the council made no new dogmatic or binding definitions and was merely of a pastoral nature, a novelty among councils of the Church. Abp. Lefebvre quoted the General Secretary of the council, Pericle Cardinal Felici, as saying: “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 declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)
Further: Cardinal Felici, General Secretary of the Council, Declaration of March 6,1964 and reiterated Nov. 11, 1964, Monitum. The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964. Pope Paul VI had it read by the Council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s members on November 16 of that year. It was intended to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so. (http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2008/Apr-Dec/On_the_Authority_of_the_Second_Vatican_Council.htm)
This means that certain matters were not taught as infallible and thus would only require a religious assent, which is not absolute, but only morally certain and conditional.
Edith Stein was canonized in the 1990s.
Infallibility does not necessarily cover an entire document, but only the specific definitions, or definitive decisions, contained within it. The following is taken from the pre-Vatican II manual of dogmatic theology, by Msgr. Van Noort:
“The Church’s rulers are infallible not in any and every exercise of their teaching power; but only when, using all the fullness of their authority, they clearly intend to bind everyone to absolute assent or, as common parlance puts it, when they ‘define’ something in matters pertaining to the Christian religion. That is why all theologians distinguish in the dogmatic decrees of the councils or of the popes between those things set forth therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition… And if in some particular instances the intention of giving a definitive decision were not made sufficiently clear, then no one would be held by virtue of such definitions, to give the assent of faith: a doubtful law is no law at all”. [Van Noort, D. T. Pg 104]
Notice that even within dogmatic decrees issued by a council or pope, only the definitions contained within them are protected by infallibility. Furthermore, it is necessary that the intention of giving a definitive decision be made sufficiently clear. Applying this to Vatican II, which was “merely a pastoral council” that “defined no dogma at all”, as Cardinal Ratzinger admitted [Cardinal Ratzinger, Address to Chilean Bishops, July 13, 1988], it is clear that if any of the documents contain error, it would not be contrary to the infallibility of the Church as a whole, nor to Papal Infallibility specifically, since infallibility as such only applies to definitions and definitive decisions.
Since Vatican II specifically avoided defining any doctrines, the only teachings of Vatican II that would be protected by infallibility are those that were defined prior to the Council, as Bishop Butler of England admitted two years after the close of Vatican II. He wrote “not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” [The Tablet, 11/26/1967]
I think you need to re-read Louie’s article, especially the bit that quote’s Our Lord directly:
He who rejects me rejects him who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Mr Hahn did not proclaim a new covenant, Jesus Christ our Lord did.
Luke 22:20. This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.
So your comment is a swing and a miss -strike one.
I am sure you would agree Louie,s post and my brothers letter explains somewhat how for example, Catholic Relief Services can do good works, but do not feel the need to proclaim the Gospel and convert people to the Church. My brother is an exceptional Catholic in thought, word and deed and does his part in building up the Kingdom. Strike two.
Your brother in Christ
Michael F Poulin
Would you like to know who was involved in the writings of “Nostra aetate”?
Surprise, surprise…..a Priest from Opus Dei: Raimon Panikkar.
So far, we have discovered two things: on the one hand, that former prelate of Opus Dei, Alvaro del Portillo, now beatified, developed a key role containing the modernist revolutionaries and leaded them to moderate their language in the official documents of the CVII.
Now we know on the other hand, of another priest from Opus Dei , who was actually working on the revolutionary side precisely leading the ecumenism effort to the extreme.
Both under the umbrella and direction of St. josemaria Escriva de Balaguer.
Food for thought.
Ecumenical dialogue is a constant in Panikkar from the beginning, being one of the theologians who worked on the declaration Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council; Paul VI named him to the team of the Ecumenical Tantur Institute (Jerusalem). But in his conception of this ecumenical dialogue, RP attempts to go beyond inter-confessional ecumenism (among Christian confessions) to achieve an inter-religious ecumenism, an ecumenical ecumenism that seeks a relationship of mutual fecundation between the different religions in the ecumene.
Panikkar’s ecumenical ecumenism wishes to move away from mission – wanting to impose, vanquish or convince the other with arguments from my religion so that he might abandon his – toward dialogue, discovering the riches of the other (La transformación de la misión cristiana en diálogo, Madrid 1992). The intra-religious dialogue is more than inter-religious dialogue; it is a dialogue open to mutual enrichment, in which one is always open to learning from the believer of another religion, a dialogical dialogue that may move beyond the dialectical dialogue (The Intrareligious Dialogue, New York 1999).
Check this out:
According to this research paper, the council was indeed protected by the HG. The reasoning presented here is actually the common argument of the main stream Novus Ordo church.
Dear Sobieski and CraigV,
Thank you for your observations on my comment. Please permit me to remark upon yours together:
CraigV, here is the quote from Paul VI’s Audience of 12 Jan., 1966 by itself:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogma endowed with the note of infallibility but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
You quite accurately note that Paul VI states that the Council did not invoke “…any EXTRAORDINARY STATEMENTS of dogma endowed with the note of infallibility …” In other words, the Council did not invoke the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM.
However, please note upon reading his sentence further, Paul VI states, quite unequivocally, that the Council provided its teaching ” …WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM …” In other words the Council DID invoke infallibility – the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
The misconception that ONLY the solemn magisterium defining dogmas ex cathedra is infallible is incorrect:
Vatican I (Dz 1792), previously referred to in my comment above, and Pope Pius IX (in Tuas Libenter, 1863 and also in the Syllabus of Errors, 22), have unambiguously specified that Catholics must believe and adhere to, by Divine and Catholic faith those things:
1. Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND
2. Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:
(a) Solemn pronouncements (by ecumenical councils, or popes ex cathedra)
(b) UNIVERSAL ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread throughout the world.
3. Teachings held by theologians to belong to the faith.
4. Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
5. Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
Acceptance of the above is not optional, or a matter of opinion, they (teachings of Vatican I and PiusIV) define the object of faith and belief therein is obligatory. Further, they are de fide definita – infallible, unchangeable, solemn pronouncements. (1.,2.)
So I must reiterate: According to Pope Paul VI himself, VATICAN II WAS PROMULGATED AS TEACHING OF THE INFALLIBLE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM!
This leaves us poor Catholics with two options. There is no middle ground. We MUST choose between:
Proposition 1: I believe and accept every word, every jot and tittle, taught by the infallible magisterium in Vatican II, by authority of our true Pope Paul VI, by Divine and Catholic faith. The Catholic Faith is accepted in its entirety, or not at all. Let anybody who refutes, denies, rejects, criticizes, questions, by one iota, or finds error in the sacred Council be anathema! ( Sorry Louie, but that would include you because you find fault with Nostra Aetate in this post. :))
Proposition 2: Vatican II is promulgated as teaching of the Infallible Ordinary Magisterium, but it contains numerous heresies, errors and novelties, by authority of Pope Paul VI, which are in conflict with prior Church teaching. Therefore, I solemnly denounce Pope Paul VI as an anti-pope and Vatican II as a false and heretical Council. Let them be anathema!
CraigV as to what is meant by “concerning the nature and aims of each document” I also have no idea. Sounds like NO doublespeak to me also. Maybe it is the modernistic tactic of leaving a gap – a bolt hole for escape if necessary. So if somebody points out (like Louie has in this post) that a particular document, or part thereof, contains error, heresy, or novelty they can say “Oh, no, dear fellow, that piece was not taught infallibly – it was only Pastoral!!! 🙂
Sobieski, you record:
“There are a number of council fathers on record as saying the council made no new DOGMATIC or binding DEFINITIONS …”
This is quite true – they did not invoke the Solemn Magisterium.
“… and was merely of a pastoral nature…” Sneaky fellows! This is the gap they intend to use in the future. Of course it is no gap at all!
“Abp. Lefebvre quoted the General Secretary of the council, Pericle Cardinal Felici, as saying: “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 DECLARATIONS WHICH HAVE A NOVEL CHARACTER, WE HAVE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”
Am I going crazy? Do my eyes deceive? Is the Cardinal General Secretary of Vatican II saying that “we” (the Cardinal? the Council? or us poor Catholics?) must have RESERVATIONS about the NOVEL DECLARATIONS of Vatican II? You can’t make this stuff up! It is unbelieveable!
You further record:
“Cardinal Felici, General Secretary of the Council, Declaration of March 6,1964 and reiterated Nov. 11, 1964, Monitum. The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on March 6, 1964. POPE PAUL VI HAD IT READ by the Council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s members on November 16 of that year. IT WAS INTENDED TO ASSURE THEM THAT IT WAS NOT AN INFALLIBLE COUNCIL, BEFORE THEY GAVE THEIR APPROVAL TO THE FIRST CONCILIAR TEXT, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as THE COUNCIL WAS INTENDED TO BE PASTORAL, IT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE INFALLIBLY DEFINING any matter unless it openly says so. (http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2008/Apr-Dec/On_the_Authority_of_the_Second_Vatican_Council.htm)
Am I getting this right? The Pope orders a nota praevia read saying:
I, your Pope and this Council, under my authority, are going to promulgate a number of texts. The first one is called lumen gentium. All the conditions for these to be regarded as infallible texts are fulfilled, (and I myself will confirm that on 12 Jan., 1966, but you don’t know that yet) but nevertheless, please understand and be reassured that you are not required to regard them as infallible. I’m telling you this now, before the first text is published, so that you will not be upset by anything you may find in them, with which you might disagree. Remember, I’m not teaching infallibly. Please feel free to pick and choose.
OK guys enough is enough!
Now we have Paul VI stating himself in his audience of 12 Jan., 1966 that the Council is providing its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility and the very same Paul VI ordering a document read assuring every body that the teachings of the same Council are not to be regarded as infallible! What a MASTER of modernist doublespeak he was!
How cunning he was:
He says “…as the Council was intended to be pastoral , it should not be understood to be INFALLIBLY DEFINING any matter unless it openly says so.”
By “infallibly defining” he means/refers to the Solemn Magisterium.
We KNOW that the Council made no solemn definitions of dogma, so nowhere would we expect to find it openly saying that it did. But by saying what he did, he intended to mislead gullible souls into thinking that it was just a “pastoral” Council and not an infallible one, so that cafeteria Catholics and recognise & resisters could pick and choose what they wanted to accept, or reject to their hearts’ content. What a sublime Modernist he was!
1. Rev. Anthony Cekada http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
2. Rev. Anthony Cekada. http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Thanks for your brilliant expose of the errors contained within “Nostra Aetate”. I believe you have been gifted with the ability to distill (or perhaps better stated, “untangle”) complex (and often confusing) ideas into straightforward and easy to understand statements.
God Bless and keep up the good work.
Well, it looks like “St” Josemaria was a two sided figure wasn’t he…? 😉
Just trying to get cozy with the popes in order to further his ‘opus dei’ agenda…
I’ve read a bunch of bad things regarding his canonization.
After the Church – post Chastisement – addresses V2, it’ll have to address all the questionable canonizations that took place in its wake.
“So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in the rich nourishment from the root of God’s special olive tree. But you must not brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. You are just a branch, not the root.
You, by nature, were a branch cut from a wild olive tree. So if God was willing to do something contrary to nature by grafting you into his cultivated tree, he will be far more eager to graft the original branches back into the tree where they belong.”
Comment: GOD’S SPECIAL OLIVE TREE
Does this tree consist of God’s chosen people, minus the Jewish branches of those unwilling to accept Christ, replaced now with grafted on Gentile believers, with the anticipation of further grafting on of original Jewish branches, now transformed by the gift of Faith?
And so we acknowledge the fact that those unbelieving Jewish branches have the same olive genotype of once stemming from God’s special Abrahamic olive tree, and we pray for their safe return to the original tree
“Covenant Theology…?” Spoken like a faithful “Protestant minded Catholic” Well stated sophistry. There is only OTF outside of which there is no salvation. Fruit of V2. Stay in the “Church” and redefine the meaning of words, conflate new ones, change it’s mission and purpose as one sees fit, and still consider oneself a Catholic. Ya have to wonder how all the Pre V2 Saints, Priest, Popes & Clergy were ever able to get along in the world let alone convert it? May I suggest 2 virtues that were lived and have been practically non-existent at every level in the Church Post V2…Namely, Humility and Obedience. May as well be speaking a foreign language from the planet Wambino.
With the same sophistry and same results…Disaster!
Lets face it. JP2, among other things, changed the whole canonization process to the point of making it more of an “honorarium” in comparison to to previous standards. Not to be disrespectful to the dead but one scribe said that under the new procedures, a Pope could canonize the equivalent of a “Ham Sandwich”
It’s not a coincidence that JP2 canonized (not including ‘Blessed’s) more saints than ALL of the previous Popes combined. It’s also a fact that he essentially ignored the doctrine of “No Salvation Outside The Church” i/f/o of a brand of “Can’t We All Get Along” Ecumenism. Might explain his popularity?
The mission of the Church to which I refer is from Jesus:
(Mark 16) …19Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
To what mission change were you referring?
As far as the new covenant; pre-Vatican II Catholics just assumed it; Protestants borrowed it from us, its just that you seem to have forgotten it – perhaps it would behoove you sir to read some Church Fathers and Saints who matter-of-factly tied Baptism and the promises made there to a new covenant:
Gregory Nazianzen Oration 40 ch VIII:
… For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation.
St John Chrysostem Instruction to Catechumens 2nd Instruction ch 4- 5:
… If you will remember that word, which you sent forth when thou were initiated, “I renounce you, Satan, and your pomp, and your service.” …. Nothing is more safe than this word if we shall prove it by our deeds.
5. This I think it right that you who are about to be initiated should learn. For this word is a covenant with the Master. And just as we, when we buy slaves, first ask those who are being sold if they are willing to be our servants: So also does Christ. When He is about to receive you into service, He first asks if you wish to leave that cruel and relentless tyrant, and He receives covenants from you.
St John Chrysostom Homily 25 on the Gospel of John:
What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead.
All pre Vatican II people I’m afraid. What else ya got?
Michael F Poulin
The Church is Israel. She is ‘chosen’. The end game of prophetic Israel is the Church, the Bride of Christ. Christ, not Abraham, is the True Vine. (Before Abraham was, I AM). The whole reason for the sanctification of the House of Israel was to purify the Vessel (Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin) for the Incarnation. That task was completed and the Temple of stones and animal sacrifice was destroyed. It is not through that destroyed Temple that Abraham was brought to Heaven but through God-incarnate and His self-sacrifice (Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.) Israel is not more important than their purpose – being a Faithful House of the Messiah. The concept of special dispensations on account of ‘heredity’ are very VII and Novus Ordo. There is no special dispensation in ‘Jewishness’ over ‘Greekness’. Christ is the King of all of us; without Him we have no salvation. Niether Jew nor Greek have a special dispensation to ignore the King of Kings.
“He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His father: and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.”
“Judasim seeks, like the Novus Ordo to ‘retain its Election, without having to retain the Faith.”
To be ‘chosen’ is to keep the Faith for which we have been elected.
The irony is that by the infidelity of the Jews to the Covenant which is Fulfilled in Christ’s Blood, the Gentiles were converted; and then (now?) during the Great Apostasy, the Jews will convert to the Catholic Faith. God will be Glorified!
If someone claiming to be Christ’s clergy encouraged you to worship with protestants, or pagans, or engage in Talmudic exercises or to teach that Christ has no social sovereignty, you would have every authority as, being subject to Christ to say, get off!
Well said. The ‘faithlessness’ condoned in Nostra Aetate is the work of ‘evil genius’.
PS. The brilliant quote – “Judasim seeks, like the Novus Ordo, to retain its Election, without having to retain the Faith.” Bishop Sanborn, Most Holy Trinity Seminary.
Fascinating link, thanks.
“That said, looking to see how the conciliar proposition has been applied in the life of the Church through her official organs will either confirm, or challenge, the conclusions I’ve drawn here.”
There are sources online which we have not found refuted by the Vatican (if anyone has, please correct this) which report that when Pope Benedict visited Jerusalem in 2009:
“The Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger said that the pontiff had agreed that the Catholic Church would cease all missionary activity among Jews, and thanked him for the gesture. The chief Ashkenazi rabbi went on to thank the pope for his «historic agreement and the commitment given by the Vatican, that the Church will henceforth desist from all missionary and conversion activities amongst our people. This is for us an immensely important message».
At the time, (May 2009) other blogsites – not friendly to Roman Catholicism-were quick to pick up on the appearance of utter hypocrisy such news presents for us . One wrote:
“I almost retitled the post as ‘Vatican thinks Jews should go to Hell’ but I was afraid how that would sound. I will not debate the issue of whether or not the gospel that Rome expounds is biblical or not..but the issue is whether or not anyone claiming the name of Christ and the mission of the Gospel should withhold the Gospel from any group of individuals”
Unfortunately, we must agree.
How can there be so much confusion about whether or not Jews are supposed to convert – or, even worse, hear the Gospel from a ‘pope’? The prophetic utterances about many many many generations of Jews not converting, and a final generation converting during the ‘great apostasy’ are not up for grabs. How this prophecy can be twisted to ‘excuse’ the ‘Catholic Church’ of her responsibility to tell the Truth to everyone, Jew/Greek/Male/Female/bond/free is modernist Nostra Aetate rubbish.
SLIGHTLY off topic
Chicago’s retired Cardinal Francis George “asks the faithful to pray for him.”
–Fox News and the Archdiocese report:
“He as readmitted to Loyola University Medical Center for treatment of what it described as “hydration issues and pain management.”
He said in January -doctors had run out of options for his cancer treatment and he was focusing on quality of life rather than a cure. He stopped receiving an experimental drug treatment in December because it wasn’t working.
Only Slightly off topic, because Cardinal George was described in an earlier post in a way that showed he’s needed our prayers regarding the current topic as well, and if he’s dying, as it appears, perhaps he’s ready to re-think these things, and Grace is always a help.
Excellent choice of picture, Louie! Just look at the body language and the facial expressions. Priceless!
Instead of cringing the Vicar of Christ should have said: “You are of your father
the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him” and “He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.”
It was “Blessed” Alvaro del Portillo who helped to push through the removal of the devil’s advocate for the canonization process. What better way to ram though the “Canonization” of the founder of your religious organization? 😉
“[JP2’s] own press secretary, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, is a member [of OD], as is Dr. Raffaello Cortesini, a heart surgeon who heads [!!!!] the medical board that reviews potential miracles for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.”
Multiple critics of “St” Jose Maria were barred from providing (damning) testimony.
“Opus Dei has refused to let outsiders see the material on which Escriva’s “heroic virtues” were judged-an unprecedented act of secrecy, say priests familiar with the process.”
Faith. Truth. Eternal life. Eternal death. What on earth has this comment got to do with any of the the aforementioned? Point to Truth, or what’s the point?
PS. what has ‘hydration issues’ got to do with the conversion isssue. Oh – wait – everything. Or, depending on what ‘hydration’ means, nothing.
Good comment. A breath of fresh air.
‘My mother held to her faith’. EM, your comment is clouding things. It implies that Edith Stein rejected ‘ha Moshiach’. Or is that not the meaning? Did Edith Stein and her sister, both of whom died of malnutrition in a concentration camp, reject ha-nazarene…in favour of whom? Why did Edith wear the habit? Was she embracing the Rabbinical veto of Jesus of Nazareth?
From the referenced Newsweek article, Escriva shows praiseworthy attributes, ironically presented as criticisms. Many commenters at this blog site manifest these same attributes. I’ve cited a few quotes below. Is it his fault that he got canonized?
“…Maria del Carmen Tapia [former member]…claims [Escriva] had ‘no respect’ for Popes John XXIII and Paul VI …”
“He told me that Hitler had been unjustly accused of killing 6 million Jews,” Feltzman [former Opus Dei priest] says. “In fact he had killed only 4 million. That stuck in my mind.” [Holocaust questioning]
“Escriva was so despondent over the outcome of Vatican Council II that he and his successor, Bishop Alvaro del Portillo, “went to Greece in 1967 to see if he could bring Opus Dei into the Greek Orthodox Church. Escriva thought the [Catholic) church was a shambles and that the Orthodox might be the salvation of himself and of Opus Dei as the faithful remnant.”Msgr. Flavio Capucci…acknowledges del Portillo’s trip to Greece, he says the Father had no intention of abandoning Rome.
Dear Louie and all,
One person of enormous influence over many decades in the matters of Nosta Aetate and Church-Jewish relations, has been – Dr. Eugene Fisher,
who said: “The church has two delivery systems” for its teaching. One is the classroom, one is the liturgy and the pulpit.” In both areas Catholics now receive an entirely different message about Jews and Judaism than they did for nearly 2,000 years before Vatican II.”
-On his first trip to Rome after he was named the bishops’ director of Catholic-Jewish relations in 1977, he said, a top Vatican Christian unity official “took me aside and said, ‘Gene, you have to move forward in the American dialogue. You are paving the way for us.'” …
-Cardinal Keeler, U.S. episcopal moderator of Catholic-Jewish relations since 1988, said, “On the international scene “Gene has had a key role, and his work on the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee has been crucial” He added that Fisher is one of the people he turns to “when some difficulty arises.”
-His critiques of the treatment of Judaism in Catholic educational materials have been used as a resource in revamping catechetical texts in many countries.
-The list of his books – written or edited, many in collaboration with Jewish scholars, runs two full pages single-spaced.
At one point in his pontificate, Pope John Paul II found himself needing to calm Jews upset over his friendly interchange with Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, whose connection with a Nazi military unit that committed war crimes had just recently come to light. CNS reported:
“The threat of a Jewish boycott of the Miami meeting 10 days later was averted, and Fisher had the added satisfaction of seeing that the Vatican had made few changes in the speech he drafted for the pope to deliver at that meeting.”
Robert Sugenis wrote:
http://richardedmondson.net/2014/01/13/the-jewish-covenant-with-god-according-to-pope-francis-2/ (PART 4)
“The problem for us is that it is hard to pin Francis to the wall because he never defines what he means by “Old Covenant” or “their covenant.”… It results in making it APPEAR as if the Jews still have a special covenant with God when they actually do not.
There are four possibilities to the “Old Covenant”:
1) the physical Abrahamic covenant
2) the spiritual Abrahamic covenant
3) the Mosaic covenant
4) the Davidic covenant
Of the four, the only 2 and 4 continue, since they refer exclusively to Christ, and thus they transition into the New Covenant. (cf. Hebrews 11:8-19; Rom 4:1-22)
1 and 3 were fulfilled in the Old Testament and have no continuation into the New Covenant. In other words, they are “revoked.” (cf. Neh 9:7-8; Josh 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 cf. Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; 2Cor 3:6-14; Col 2:14-15)
But the liberals, like Francis, don’t define their terms. They have been playing this word game for many years. The object is to confuse and make it appear as if there is actually some Scriptural or Ecclesiastical basis to maintaining a covenant with the Jews.
John Paul II was the first to make use of “Old Covenant” in his 1981 Mainz speech. He stated: “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God.”.
-The 1988 paper on the liturgy by the USCCB got a little bolder and mentioned the “Sinai covenant” as still being valid, and this was the first time that there was a shift from “Old Covenant” to “Sinai” or “Mosaic covenant.”
-After that, of those who were promoting that the Jews still had the “Old Covenant,” no one used either “Sinai” or “Mosaic” covenant. Except in 2006, the USCCB Adult catechism resurrected the word “Mosaic” covenant on page 131. It stated: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”
“Seeing this, I wrote a lengthy letter to the CDF and the USCCB in 2007, and then wrote a major article for Culture Wars in Jan. 2008, stating that this was a heresy and needed to be removed. That year, the US bishops had their executive meeting, and in August 2008 voted 231 to 14 to take out the offending sentence. The next year, 2009, the Vatican issued a “recognitio” approving of the USCCB’s decision.
.. the USCCB is going to replace the heretical sentence with a quote from Romans 9:4-5 which, depending on the translation from the Greek, could imply that the Jews still have a covenant with God. To be sure, the Greek doesn’t allow a present covenant, but some English translations do, since they slip in some words that aren’t in the Greek, such as the Protestant Revised Standard Version (1946), and that is the very translation that the USCCB is using in its revised Adult catechism when it is published. How clever. They won’t use the New American Bible (which is a Catholic Bible) because the NAB doesn’t add the needed English words to make it appear as if the Jews have a covenant with God!!
“Needless to say, these people are experts at word games, and few people have the acumen or knowledge to smoke them out. Bottom line: until if and when we can pin Francis and his cohorts down to be specific concerning what covenant they have in view, we won’t get very far. They learned their lesson in the 2006 US Adult catechism incident.”
Case in point: I was in a protracted discussion with Dr. Eugene Fisher, former director of the USCCB, in about 2007, about the “Old Covenant.” Fisher was touting that the Old Covenant was still the Jews’ covenant. At the end, I asked him what Old Covenant he was referring to, since there were several old covenants. That is when he terminated the conversation, and I haven’t heard from him since.
So you see, this is a word game. As long as they can use ambiguous and undefined terms, they perpetuate their agenda. It’s a brilliant strategy, devilish as it is.”
It is part of the mandate from Our Lord, that His followers pray for the conversion of all people, including those who have or are currently persecuting us from within the hierarchy – by promoting false or confusing teachings.
The link we provided above to Louie’s previous post on Cardinal George, directly connects his past actions, when in office in Chicago, to the topic under current discussion.
Since his current situation was headline news, and we recalled his position on the Jews, we thought it appropriate to ask our fellow Catholics to pray for his conversion, if still necessary, before he faces death and judgment.
You have a problem with that?
In 2010, Gregory Baum, (then age 87) “expert” for the Secretariat for Promotion of Christian Unity, delivered the Nostra Aetate Lecture at Georgetown University, promoting the idea that the Church’s response to “modernity” is what necessitated its changing from past methods to “inter-religious dialogue” which
— “must include critical reference to the Enlightenment and the challenge of modernity.
–“By modernity,” he said, “I mean the new world produced by technology, science, a maximizing economy, democratic pluralisms, human rights and religious liberty.”
–..”after more than a century of rejecting Enlightenment ideas of human rights and democratic pluralism, the Catholic church “was able, at the Second Vatican Council, to say a critical yes to modernity, while continuing to oppose scientific reductionism and utilitarian individualism.”
–addressing “the evolution of Catholic-Jewish and Catholic-Muslim relations since the council”, and under Pope Benedict XVI, he noted that just two months after Benedict’s “hostile remark” Oct. 12, 2006, in Regensburg, Germany, “suggesting that Islam had a special relationship to violence and worshiped a divinity different from the God of Christians,” the pope delivered a speech in Turkey “recognizing that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God and, more than that, have a common mission to give witness to the Almighty in an increasingly secular world.”
Baum suggested Benedict’s thinking on interreligious dialogue has evolved over the years — especially since the instruction Dominus Iesus, which he issued in 2000 as prefect of CDF, in which he had argued that “interreligious dialogue is part of the church’s evangelizing mission, and, secondly, Catholics involved in this dialogue must keep in mind that it ultimately aims at the conversion of their partners.”
–“Just four months later, Ratzinger wrote a lengthy article in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, in which he “recognizes that dialogue with Jews is not oriented toward their conversion,” Baum said.
–Baum said opponents of religious harmony — “notable among them being religious fundamentalisms of various kinds … better organized, more experienced, better coordinated, more motivated and more ruthless” than dialogue and harmony proponents — have helped create a world “rife with religious tension and, sadly, mistrust, dislike and hatred” that the proposed interfaith harmony week seeks to counteract.”
We see that Sacred Scripture uses very different words regarding what Christians should expect regarding “religious harmony” if we are faithful to our Lord’s teachings:
–Matthew 10: “And you shall be hated by all men for my name’ s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.”
–John 15: “If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.  But all these things they will do to you for my name’ s sake: because they know not him who sent me.  If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.  He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.  If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.  But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.
This issue is seen clearly in the Good Friday liturgy.
Traditional prayer for the Jews:
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. [pause for silent prayer]
Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
And in the Novus Ordo:
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest)
Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
How can they “grow in faithfulness” to a covenant that they REJECT?
Dear Ever mindful,
Despite reading quite a few testimonies like this from devoted family members who strive themselves to live exemplary lives, , we think it is wisest never to “presume” salvation for a loved ones (or anyone else), especially when that is despite distinct appearances that they rejected God’s revealed truth all their lives.
But there is also nothing wrong with HOPING that something unknown to us took place in their souls before the moment of their death and particular judgment, which was able to saved them from that dreaded eternal separation from the just. And the Church encourages us to continue praying for them as if they are in purgatory, and can benefit greatly from our prayers and sacrifices.
Nail on the head. It is not charity to delude people into believing they don’t need to change their beliefs to be saved. And God certainly isn’t “fooled” by this new language they’ve introduced. All it does is appease the dialoguers.
When clergy are confronted about this particular change in the prayers, some will squirm with discomfort, and others pounce on the last line as proof that we are asserting their need for conversion by praying for them to “arrive at the fullness of redemption”. It’s more of the same vagueness that they hope works both ways. But as long as the word isn’t strongly proclaimed anymore that they need to convert, we are doing them all a great disservice, that amounts to criminal negligence on the part of all who contrive and promote it.
That’s ’cause, as per post-VII theology, the old covenant was never abrogated, and hence remains valid. They can therefore, “grow in faithfulness” within their (allegedly) still valid covenant.
And you think it is a good thing to:
1) Defend Hitler for the “unjust” accusation of having killed 6 million, whereas he *ONLY* (allegedly) killed 4 million?
2) To try to bring a catholic religious group in “unity” with the Greek “orthodox” schismatics/heretics?
3) To allegedly have “no respect” for JXXIII & Paul VI, and simultaneously pose in photos with these popes with big wide grins?
My head hurts!
Why does my Church spread error in this regard?
What does it mean for me that I’m now one of one Roman Catholic in 548676 (that number is just a guess)that is now educated in this regard?
Seemingly Louie is a lone voice crying in a vast wilderness of ignorance. And he’s only accessible to English speakers.
We’re not Gnostics with some special knowledge! Why can so few see this?
Please, somebody explain this to me. Where do we go from here.
Another excellent blog entry, Louie, and as always you ask the reader to really really consider the issue.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and although Vatican II’s intent may have been to improve relations between the Church and other denominations, it appears to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater in doing so.
I do have one question “he who rejects Me…….”
Rejection is an act which is an act of will. I can’t knowingly reject what I am not aware of. I can knowingly reject what I am aware of. Whatever about the awareness that protestants have of Jesus Christ, it is reasonable to conclude that there are Jews and Muslims and Hindus, who have no awareness of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Are these people to be punished for not knowing something?
Of course all of this places an additional obligation upon us Catholics. We’re obliged to spread the message of Christ to non-Christians in the hope that they will become Catholic and will therefore have the chance of being saved.
Dear Paul Morphy,
It’s our understanding that this is exactly what so highly motivated the missionaries of Pre VII times, who willingly went to their deaths for this cause. They had no illusions about how necessary it is for the Church to bring this light to the world in darkness. And the same Holy Spirit was working then, as now, so SOMEbody is deluded about this matter, and we’re pretty sure it wasn’t those missionaries of the past.
A fine answer, Indignus. 🙂
The Church is obligated to preach objective truth, and the truth (straight from the mouth of Truth Himself) is that those who reject Christ reject God and have cut themselves off from Him.
As for the subjective matter of who knowingly rejects Him or does so in ignorance, Our Lord will sort that out. The obligation of the Church is to labor to baptize the nations, teaching them everything whatsoever…
Then there is the matter of what happens to the invincibly ignorant. Pius IX wrote:
“Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme goodness and clemency do not permit those who are not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment.” (Quanto Conficiamur: 1863)
Note that he does not say that eternal salvation is their lot; only that eternal punishment is not. Thus the motivation of the missionaries of whom Indignus wrote.
@Indignus : The religious order who educated me here in Ireland, The Holy Ghost Fathers (The Spiritans), were sending missionaries abroad from my country to regions of West Africa and South America, long after Vatican II too. The clergy, many of whom suffered broken health as a result of their hard work abroad, were great educators and their stories about their missionary work in terrible conditions were inspirational to me and my classmates. What brave and honourable men they were!
What we know is that God keeps his promises, therefore the missionaries who “go out and teach all nations” will receive their recompense in the next life for their work in this life.
Please excuse a newby, but having only recently abandoned my faithful old pencil and paper, and entered the 21 centuary, I don’t know the rules of the game for making comments.
I spent several hours last Sunday responding to Sobieski and CraigV Regarding my comment above. When I posted my new comment a notice said “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” That notice was instantaneous. Nothing has happened since then.
What does that mean? Please help. Does it mean that my new comment must be vetted by the blog master, in view of my previous comments, or that it is refused for publication, or that I am just too impatient? If it is declined for publication please email it back to me Louie. I have no copy of it and, seeing it took a bit of work, I would like to keep it in my records. 🙂
I’m glad you’ve decided to jump in. 🙂
I just manually approved the comment in question. I have a spam filter in place that flags posts with multiple links. (Often those are computer generated spam.) That’s the reason it flagged yours.
It’s best to avoid placing more than one link in a given comment since I don’t review these filtered comments very often (it’s a time issue).
Sorry for delay. Thanks for commenting here. I appreciate it.
I’m times of crisis we faithful do indeed have to “pick and choose” what to believe. We “pick and choose” that which is tradition.
Same as during the Arian heresy. Many if not most in authority were either heretics or silent in the face of heresy. Souls had to pick and choose indeed.
It’s not the way it’s supposed to be, but it’s the way it is. The Good Lord will clean house at the time of His choosing.
In Hoc Signo Vinces:
I think it is a good thing to:
1) Question the standard Holocaust propaganda narrative that 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler.
2) Overcome a strong temptation to leave the Catholic Faith.
3) Have “no respect” for the errors of JXXIII & Paul VI (which has no bearing on smiling while being photographed with them).
Wouldn’t you agree?
No, it is NOT a good thing to defend someone on account for having killed *ONLY* 4 million innocent souls.
It is NOT a good thing to flirt with the grave sin of schism.
It is NOT a good thing to allegedly say nasty things in private about Paul VI and then warmly embrace him in public. It is duplicitous and hypocritical. Whenever did you see Arch Lefebvre warmly embrace Paul VI in public?
You mentioned being new and not having saved your comment on which you did a lot of work so 2 things:
-Welcome! It’s great to have another with whom I can agreeably disagree 🙂
-Since my laptop doesn’t always cooperate, I normally work on my comments in Word or some other text program and then copy them into the comment box. This allows me to cover up some of my atrocious spelling and save it at least until it gets “published”.
I appreciate the background. Really seemed like a wierd comment otherwise. No problems, at least not with yous.
PS. comment meant for Indignus somewhere up above.
You are making my point. You admit to not understanding how all this is to be understood. Further, you have no authority to make a judgment here, i.e., a formal or official one that is binding on the faithful, declaring a pope to not be a pope or a council not a council. Do you claim that authority? That is the role of the Church. To say otherwise, is to adopt a Protestant mentality and usurp the Church’s authority.
In my view, you are presenting a false dilemma and not making sufficient distinctions as to what in the VII documents is of the Ordinary Magisterium and what is not. You are making a blanket assertion that everything in the documents is of the Ordinary Magisterium based on your interpretation of one text, but the texts and comments of the council fathers in their entirety are clearly open to other interpretations as I have shown. I do agree that it is confusing, but it is the Church that will have to clean up this mess sometime in the future.
Yes! You and I choose tradition! We choose the Faith of our Fathers! We choose what Holy Mother Church has taught for nearly 2000 years! We agree on that. 🙂
However, there are other kinds of “pickers and choosers” as well – those who pick and choose between which teachings of Holy Mother Church they deign to accept and those they presume to reject. We call them “cafeteria catholics”, like the “recognise&resisters”. They are not true to the Faith of Our Fathers.
There are in the Church two groups of people – the Teachers and the Taught. The Teachers are the clergy, headed by the Sovereign Pontiff and we are those being taught. You are indubitably correct in stating that I have no authority whatever to make formal and official judgements binding on the Faithful! If I had, they would be calling me Pope Pete! 🙂
Actually, I am not making a blanket assertion that everything in the documents of Vatican II is of the Ordinary Magisterium, because I deny that any valid Ordinary Magisterium was involved. I assert that Paul VI was not a Pope and not even a member of the Catholic Church. It is not I that make that judgement, it is the Vicar of Christ himself, Pope Paul IV, in his Apostolic Constitution of 15 Feb., 1559, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:
“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
No! It was not I making that blanket assertion – it was Paul VI himself:
“… it [Vatican II] still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility…”
So, if you believe that Pope Paul VI was the Vicar of Christ, then you must believe, accept and submit to every jot and tittle of Vatican II. That is not the opinion of Pope Pete, that is Catholic Doctrine. If you refuse submission to the Pope you are a schismatic and no longer a member of the Catholic Church. That is the Faith of our Fathers.
Our Lord will clean up this mess according to His will, but until He does, we can say the Rosary daily, wear the brown scapula, make frequent signs of the cross, beg the Immaculate Heart to come soon and stick to the Faith of our Fathers! Get out of the mess!
In my view, you are presenting a false dilemma and not making sufficient distinctions as to what in the VII documents is of the Ordinary Magisterium and what is not. You are making a blanket assertion that everything in the documents is of the Ordinary Magisterium based on your interpretation of one text, but the texts and comments of the council fathers in their entirety are clearly open to other interpretations as I have shown. I do agree that it is confusing, but it is the Church that will have to clean up this mess sometime in the future.
Sorry! I forgot to delete the quotation of your comment I was working from, from the bottom of my comment. I am getting geriatric!
Thanks for the welcome and the tip Mike. 🙂
You’ve reworded the three points I stated above to completely change their meaning. Why don’t you address the points as stated?
You are indubitably correct in stating that I have no authority whatever to make formal and official judgements binding on the Faithful!
But then you make two judgments about the status of a former pope and council:
…because I deny that any valid Ordinary Magisterium was involved [with Vatican II, i.e., meaning it was not a council]. I assert that Paul VI was not a Pope and not even a member of the Catholic Church.
How can you hold such a declaration, but on your own judgment and authority? So you are indeed acting like Pope Peter.
Nothing I’ve said is incompatible with Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, but the question is how do we know a prelate of the Church is guilty of heresy (formal not material)? We know by a declaration of the Church (i.e., by a reigning, living pontiff or in the case of the pontiff by a declaration from the college of cardinals, Roman synod, etc.). Please show me where the Church has declared that Pope Paul VI was a formal heretic or Vatican II was not a legitimately convoked council. Even granting material heresy, that is not enough to cause a reigning pontiff to fall from office. Only a declaration by the Church of the formal heresy or defection of a pontiff from the Faith would show that he has fallen from office. Bellarmine, Suarez and others agree on this point. The Church never declared Pope Paul VI a formal heretic. So you have no basis for your belief.
I would recommend articles like the following which demonstrate the problems with the sedevacantist thesis:
Thank you for replying to my comment.
Please let us agree that I possess no authority whatsoever! 🙂
My judgement is no more than that of an ordinary Catholic layman, a sheep farmer, (who never tried to smell like his sheep 🙂 ), doing his best to adhere to the Catholic Faith as taught prior to 1958.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Fr. Cekada, Robert Siscoe, etc. get very complicated for a sheep farmer, so let us keep it simple and take a look at Cum Ex Apostolatus, which I am sure all would agree, is Infallible Magisterium:
” … if ever … the Roman Pontiff, PRIOR to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some HERESY:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be NULL, VOID and worthless; …
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived AUTOMATICALLY, and WITHOUT NEED OF ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
Please note that ” … Only a declaration by the Church of the formal heresy or defection of a pontiff from the Faith would show that he has fallen from office …” is, in terms of Cum Ex Apostolatus, incorrect. The loss of Office is automatic and no further declaration is necessary.
Now Montini became a mason long before he became “pope”. See the writings of Fr. Luigi Villa for details. He was excommunicated, ipso facto, when he joined that sect, in terms of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (c.2335) of 1917. (ie. before he was able to alter Canon Law to his own ends in 1983 🙂 ) The masons are arch heretics who worship lucifer. So he was already a heretic when elected and, in terms of Cum Ex Apostolatus, his election was null and void. How am I getting it wrong so far?
Vatican II promulgated many heresies – the one exposed in this very post on Nostra Aetate is an excellent example. Vatican II was promulgated, by authority of Montini, as teaching of the Infallible Ordinary Magisterium. We have that from his own mouth. Therefore how can it be wrong to state that Montini was a formal, pertinaceous, notorius heretic while he was “pope”? So, even if his election had been valid, he would have lost Office the day he promulgated Vatican II. I can’t see where I am getting it wrong.
How do we know when a Prelate is a formal heretic? We know that when he teaches formally, pertinaceously and notoriously that which is contrary to what the Catholic Church has taught for nearly 2000 years.
So that is why I am a sedevacantist.
How do we know when a Prelate is a formal heretic? We know that when he teaches formally, pertinaceously and notoriously that which is contrary to what the Catholic Church has taught for nearly 2000 years.
No, that is not the case and certainly not the view of authorities like St. Robert Bellarmine. I am sorry, Peter, but you are not getting it. Even you admit so, but you feel yourself competent to judge Pope Paul VI not a pope nonetheless. If you would have bothered to read the Siscoe article, you would have seen that he answers many of the points you raise in that article (and elsewhere). I have a family with small kids, and since it is the Triduum and we have reached an impasse, I can’t continue going round and round. I wish you all the best and pray that God lead in doing His will.
Craig, In the traditional Good Friday liturgy, we do not kneel at the prayer for the Jews, because they mocked Our Lord on Good Friday. I do not know if you are able to edit your post and remove the “Let us kneel. Let us arise. section.
The imprecations in the Good Friday Liturgy in respect of those outside the Church, suggest they can be saved outside of the Church.
According to Archbishop Lefebvre, the orthodox Fathers wanted to make some infallible binding statements in the documents, but those who wanted to change Church doctrine (the Faith) were in control of the administration of the Council (as per last Synod of Bishops) and would not allow it. They wanted the vagueness and ambiguity and subjectiveness throughout the documents, which the heretics and apostates could use for their own purposes.
The consequences of sin. The majority do not care for the truth. They have become worldly, debauched, full of pride and caring only for human regard. Darkening of the intellect, corruption of the will, hardening of the heart. Those holding to the Truth are but a tiny remnant.
Amen. The Pope completely undermines the work of the missionaries prepared to die to bring the Faith to all, subverts the mission of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Sir, might you just be a teeny bit sensitive?
Please provide specific cite where “pre-Vatican 2 just assumed it” I don’t believe you can other than by your personal inference.
Perhaps you would please provide the proper cite in the Douay-Rheims Bible..ie.. Book, Chapter, Verse in New Testament where Christ, or any writers of the Gospels or other books of the NT specifically direct, command, mention, prescribe a “New Covenant” by name replacing the “Old Covenant”. Please be specific and on point. Personal inferences from you, your brother and/or Fathers of the Church are just that unless they are defined truths aka dogmas (255 at last count).
My point was “Covenant Theology” is not and has not been a generally used Roman Catholic Terminology.
You proved the point by having to cite great saints and Church Fathers, StJC and St GN who lived in the 4th to 5th Century?
Why not just cite the Bible? Reason? You Can’t. Why? It’s not there. Don’t need much with folks who have to resort to..”What else ya got” You took up a lot of time and space to prove exactly what?….I would venture to guess, (excluding Eastern/Byzantine members/priests) that 1% or less (if that) of current Catholic laity/priest have read or read the Church Fathers. Shameful for sure but reality.