Apparently, the “diabolical disorientation” of which Our Blessed Lady forewarned Fatima seer Sr. Lucia is contagious.
In a recent essay published by Religion News Service, Rabbi David Rosen, one of the Holy See’s most highly-favored Jewish dialogue partners (pictured above), reflected on the sea-change in Catholic-Jewish relations since the promulgation of Nostra Aetate of Vatican II wherein he pondered the possibility of a similar turnabout taking place with the Muslims.
While they [Jewish-Muslim relations] are inevitably affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recall, however, that Islam had never denigrated Judaism in the way that Christianity had. We do not have to wait for a resolution of Middle East conflicts.
Islam never denigrated Judaism?
Perhaps Rosen has been too busy chatting it up with his cardinalatial pals to peruse the Qur’an; the “holy writ” of Islam that mandates the subjugation, taxation, and ultimately the slaughter of infidels like himself.
In any case, Rosen is correct in categorizing the conciliar approach to Catholic-Jewish relations as nothing short of a “revolution.”
Indeed, there may be nothing in human history that quite parallels such an amazing transformation. A wondrous achievement in itself, the revolution in Catholic-Jewish relations also suggests something more universal about relationships between religious communities.
And from where did he get an idea like this?
Speaking on the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate in 2012, Cardinal Kurt Koch made a similar assessment of the Council, saying:
With regard to the reception history of Conciliar documents, 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.
You see, Rosen’s biggest mistake is an unfortunately common one; he actually believes the nonsense that has been flowing from the lips of such champions of inter-religious dialogue as Cardinals Walter Kasper, Kurt Koch, and Jean-Louis Tauran (to say nothing of the occupants of the Chair of St. Peter) over the last several decades.
As such, the poor rabbi is unable (as are most Catholics) to discern between the immutable faith of the Church and the Council-inspired rubbish that has marked Catholic-Jewish “dialogue” (among other things) in the years since its closing.
For instance, Rosen, having taken Cardinal Koch’s words to heart, sincerely believes that the Holy Catholic Church, after nearly 2,000 years, has officially “re-oriented” herself away from the divinely inspired teachings of St. Paul who said that Christ “abolished in His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances.” (cf Eph 2)
In his essay, Rosen therefore feels entirely justified in claiming that the Council “affirmed the unbroken and eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people.”
Is there anyone in Rome today officially involved in Catholic-Jewish dialogue who still possesses the faint heartbeat of Apostolic zeal necessary to state the plain truth that it was the Jewish people themselves who broke the covenant between themselves and God when they rejected Jesus Christ; thereby rejecting God Himself?
If there is, it certainly isn’t Cardinal Koch who said:
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.
Many of the faithful have grown numb to such pronouncements, but truly this is nothing short of breathtaking; a Prince of the Church (with the obvious approval of the pope’s at whose pleasure he has served) proclaiming that faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for “God’s salvation.”
Before we move on, let’s talk about this peculiar phrase, “God’s salvation.”
As far as I can tell, it’s a novelty to speak of “God’s salvation” in Catholic circles; a phrase that seems to have originated in the magisterium of Pope John II, only to be employed years later in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and now comfortably repeated by “inter-religious” mavens like Cardinal Koch.
So, what’s the problem; after all, salvation really is of God, right?
The problem lies not so much in the phrase itself but in its apparent purpose; namely, it serves to obfuscate the objective truth that salvation is only of Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church that He established.
In the present case, speaking of “God’s salvation” relative to the Jews gives them the false impression that there is a salvation from God that encompasses more than that which is made available through Jesus Christ and His Church.
The bottom line impression being that conversion to the one true faith is of no real import.
The tactic employed here is similar to that which is evident in the infamous phrase invoked by the Council which states that the “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” (cf LG 8); an expression that gives baptized non-Catholics the false impression that the “Church of Christ” somehow encompasses more than just the Catholic Church.
The bottom line impression being the same; conversion to the one true faith is of no real import. (Are you seeing a trend in post-conciliar – aka Council-inspired – thought and therefore behavior?)
Returning now to Cardinal Koch’s assault on the Catholic faith, he stated:
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).
For today’s merry band of modernists, misappropriating Sacred Scripture is just another day at the office.
And why not?
Nostra Aetate itself played fast-and-loose with the inspired Word en route to its own undermining of the true faith. (See my recent video on the subject.)
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, there’s that; the necessity of responding…
This is where spineless poseurs in Catholic clerical garb (like Cardinal Koch) reveal themselves to be little more than glad-handing religious diplomats; bearing little resemblance to the authentic 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 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 willingness of modern prelates to manipulate Scripture to suit their own ends is positively Lutheresque.
In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul makes 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 very clear; the unbelieving Jews have been “cut off,” and “persisting in their unbelief” will effectively prevent their being “grafted in” once more.
So much for the conciliar proposition set forth in Nostra Aetate that states:
Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself. (NA 4)
Truly this nonsensical proposition that believers in Christ are somehow one in Him with those who reject Him is exactly what Cardinal Koch stated; “a fundamental re–orientation of the Catholic Church.”
The question is: In what way is this “re-orientation” even remotely justifiable as an integral part of Catholic tradition?
The simple truth is that it is not.
Well done per usual, Louie. You manage to pick apart the insanity and represent the truth in a logical and reasonable manner. Thank you for using the gifts God gave you to help others get home to heaven and glorify Him:+)
On a side note, have you read about Pope Francis wanting to elevate a schismatic to a Doctor of the Church? Does this throw into major question the supposed validity of the recent elevations to sainthood i.e. JPII and John XXIII? Who do you agree with, Ann or Rorate?
Thanks again for speaking the truth in darkness. Like the new blog! God bless~
Kurt Koch says: “St Paul…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)”.
With regard to Romans 11:29, Aquinas writes
“What is bestowed through God’s grace is never withdrawn except through fault. Hence it is written (Romans 11:29): ‘The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance’.”
This quote from Aquinas includes the Douay-Rheims translation of Romans 11:29, which differs from Koch’s. Certainly, Aquinas’ qualification “except through fault” appears to accord more readily with man’s original fall from grace. As the Catholic Encyclopedia writes on this subject (emphasis added):
“for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us”.
Someone let Rosen know that the Jews have also been themselves responsible for antagonizing Christians since the time they stoned St. Stephen. Persecuted the Christians, engaged in usury, sold Christians in the slave trade. And still continue to slander Christ and His Holy Mother. etc. The so called ‘anti-Semitism’ wasn’t just magically born in a vacuum. Certainly we’ll apologize for our misdeeds. We’re still waiting on his apology. But really, what is all this tit for tat stuff good for? In the end it’s about the plain truth of the matter. Even if this ecumenism was fully mutual on both sides of the aisle, telling Mr. Rosen to convert is an act of brotherly love. It’s entirely up to him, but any time he’s ready we’ll welcome him with open arms.
John Vennari wrote an interesting piece on this topic, in which he quoted John Paul II in a speech in Mainz, Germany in 1980, referring to dialogue with the Jews as the “meeting between the Old Covenant -never revoked by God,- and the New Covenant…”
This looks like more modernist trick language to us. Of course God would never be the one to break His agreement. But the Jews DID break it, and with that not being mentioned in the Pope’s statement, the impression is given that it remains intact. But a Covenant, is a two-sided agreement which, once broken by either side, remains broken.
Also in the link below, Mr. Vennari quotes a Rabbi as saying something we find very disturbing, as it implies a motive for those involved in these interfaith dialogues, to keep the SSPX in their “irregular” relationship:
“We Rabbis are concerned about a possible regularization of the Society of St. Piux X. We fear this may bring about the Vatican’s return to the pre Vatican II teaching that the Old Covenant is superseded by the New Covenant.”
‘partial communion’ ‘partial salvation’… it would be amusing – for a council that strove show its new indifferentism – if it wasn’t so evil.
We cannot be both for and against Christ. The True Faith teaches this: “Always be zealous to seek them [those outside the Faith] out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and ‘being fruitful in every good work’ [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.” Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.
Where is the charity of Vatican II and the NO, in encouraging those in the spiritual poverty, sickness, affliction and burdens of the darkness of errror to stay there?
“Many of the faithful have grown numb to such pronouncements (utter indifferentism to Truth and blatant partiality to lies), but truly this is nothing short of breathtaking.” We should try to keep feeling the blow of such reckless and soul-destroying teachings. “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Remember those old cartoons where there’s a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other vying for the attention and concession of some character. On one shoulder is the Demon-of-the-New-Order (visualise him as Bergoglio – its up to you if you add the clown-nose, he says, ‘naaaah, don’t worry about a thaing – aaawwwwl will be weeealll, don’t be a “pickled-pepper-faced-christian, a rosary-counter, a sloth-diseased-acidic-christian, a real-downer – make a mess!”‘………..and on the other we might see Pope St. Pius X who says, “Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, my son…and beware the evil one, who, like a roaring lion, seeks to devour souls.”
PS. A Novus Ordo Watch tweet asks, ‘we dare any Vatican official to answer this question: is mohammet a false prophet?’ Simple, we all know the answer. There are a multitude of likewise simple questions with obvious answers one could ask an ‘official’ of the New Order. Here’s one: Was God pleased with Luther’s editing of the Bible? Why didn’t the martyrs of the early Church convert to Judaism or just remain pagans and establish interfatih gatherings? Are we saved by the blood of Moses? Are those who say Baptism without the Trinitarian formula correct? Did the Jews under Caesar burn incense to him or were they exempt? If I convert to Islam and deny Christ was the only begotten Son of the Living God, will I be saved? If I convert to Islam and deny God could ever be a Father, will I be saved? Will I really have 72 virgins at my beck and call when I die?
The answers of the NO simply must be (if they are to have any credibility)- yes; only a pickle-pepper-faced-Christian would ever ask such a thing; yes; yes; only a pickle-pepper-faced-Christian would ever ask such a thing; yes; yes; yes.
“In his essay, Rosen therefore feels entirely justified in claiming that the Council “affirmed the unbroken and eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people.””
## Since JP2 & his successors have said that, of course the rabbi thinks that. Why should he not, when the Popes themselves teach that ? But they are all grievously in error when they do so. To call their betrayal of the Faith horrifying & damnable is no more than the truth.
“The bottom line impression being that conversion to the one true faith is of no real import.”
## That is exactly what is implied by Francis’ latest scandalous effusion about the 21 non-Catholic Copts murdered by those Muslim thugs. I am getting fed up of the sewage that comes from Rome 🙁
“This is where spineless poseurs in Catholic clerical garb (like Cardinal Koch) reveal themselves to be little more than glad-handing religious diplomats; bearing little resemblance to the authentic 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 God.”
## What they also lack is St Paul’s blazing Apostolic zeal & charity, for they lack his burning & insatiable desire for the salvation of souls. The contrast with a man of God like Mgr Lefebvre is startling. It is unbearable to think how completely the missionaries of the past are dishonoured by these posers.
“Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself. (NA 4)”
Truly this nonsensical proposition that believers in Christ are somehow one in Him with those who reject Him is exactly what Cardinal Koch stated; “a fundamental re–orientation of the Catholic Church”.””
## NA 4 is citing St Paul, who is describing how Christ has broken down the enmity between Jews & Gentiles, and united them in the Church:
“…13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,…”
## NA 4 cannot be used to justify the denial of supersessionism – the text it cites is one of the passages that shows that the Old Covenant is fulfilled in Christ & that the Church, not “Israel according to the flesh”, is “the Israel of God”.
Worthy points. The question is begging: how can one given a Grace that specifically prevents him from teaching errors in Faith, in fact, in a solemn manner, teach error? The sedevacantist would say, such a one does not have the Grace or Authority to teach in Christ’s name and should be shunned by the Church unless he recants.
I would ask the question, which came first? “JP2 & his successors” and their anti-christ narrative or the narrative of the Rabbis? The Rabbis – post-temple, post-sacrifices, post-prophets….but after 2000 years ‘pre-moshiach?’ What a terrible trick is played on people ‘born Jewish’ if there is no Church waiting to rescue them from the darkness of error and introduce them to the True Christ/Messiah that was, by too many, long ago denied. God doesn’t play such tricks. The Novus Ordo do, but not Christ and His Bride.
Tradition & the Apostles came first – which is how one can tell that JP2 & Co. are teaching error. The past is the judge of the present – not the other way round.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
EU joins with Islamic states to declare ‘the importance of respecting all prophets’
## The owner of the weblog has no difficulty exposing the idiocy of that idea. Highly recommended. And that was over two years ago.
Chris Ferrara provided a link in his latest comment on the Remnant site, which demonstrates the dilemma Benedicts words create, due to his apparently fervent belief that ALL of VII’s Documents must be accepted fully as being in complete conformity with the teachings of the past.
In light of what we’ve seen happening in the Church as a result of that thinking, including Benedict’s own admissions in the above statement about how hard he is working to keep the “reconciled” status of the Jews with the Church, we can only hope and pray he re-thinks that position and recants it soon, as he did with his modernist/Kasperian position regarding Communion for the non-annulled re”married” recently. That took him 40 years.
That is what happens when theologians prefer their own ideas to the Church’s Tradition. I *love* theology – I read theology at university – so in no way am I anti-theological: on the contrary ! But when someone has his ideas preferred to the Faith and the Traditional discipline, that is the kind of mess that results: the Church’s practice is adulterated, & souls are scandalised or confused or perverted, or led astray believing that they are being taught sound doctrine & sound practice.
Souls for whom Christ died are far too important & far too valuable to have their well-being sacrificed to the fallible “bright ideas” of theologians – no matter how distinguished.
Amen. We noticed when Pope Benedict published “Jesus of Nazareth” he made a point of explaining that it was written “as a theologian” and not as Pope.”
Blimey. As if the EU is qualified to recognise a prophet. I guess they include Nietzsche and Marx and probably Albert Pike in their admixture.
PS. The EU really don’t like the Church. I read something a while ago on the SSPX site, relaying an address given by a typical modernist in some EU parliament meet and self-congratulate. He was praising the fact the priests no longer wore clerical clothing (99% of Novus Ordo ‘priests’ are impossible to point out as a ‘Catholic priest’), and went on to insult the concept of clericals and the outdated ‘bonded’ man who wore them.
Although it may seem off-topic since it had to do with Church unity, Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum is full of Catholic truths that help to dispel the confusion spread by those like Cardinal Koch. For example, compare what Cardinal Koch had 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.”
with what Pope Leo XIII taught:
“But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished: that is to say, not some nations or peoples, but the whole human race, without distinction of time or place. ‘The Son of Man came that the world might be saved by Him’ (John iii., 17). ‘For there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved’ (Acts iv., 12). The Church, therefore, is bound to communicate without stint to all men, and to transmit through all ages, the salvation effected by Jesus Christ, and the blessings flowing there from. Wherefore, by the will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in all lands and at all times. to justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard – of race of men.”
The question then becomes that if Pope Leo XIII taught the faith that was handed down to him from the apostles – “”For there is no other name [besides that of Our Lord Jesus Christ] under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved'” – how could Cardinal Koch ever make this statement which implies that there must be at least one other name besides that of Our Lord whereby men can be saved:
“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.”
If it was an impossibility for Pope Leo XIII and the apostles, how did it become a mystery for Cardinal Koch?
Pope Leo XIII also provided guidance on whether the faithful should consider as a Catholic those prelates like Cardinal Koch who – by implication – teach that it is not necessary to hold the Catholic faith for salvation:
“‘You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held”‘ [quoting St. Augustine]