A Keel-haul of the Faith

Seattle Catholic ^ | 8/16/02 | Br. Alexis Bugnolo

[narses]

Two centuries ago, one of the most horrific punishments the British Admiralty could impose on a rebellious crewman was to tie his legs to a rope and drag him under water across the keel of a ship. This torture was known as keel-hauling, and it usually resulted in the death of the offender.

Today the Catholic Church is under assault from all sides: both from without and from within. The latest and most egregious assault is that launched by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs, presided over by Cardinal Archbishop William Keeler of Baltimore. In the document entitled, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" the joint committee, composed by the U.S. Catholic delegation and a group representing liberal American Judaism (known in Jewish circles as "Conservative Judaism"), called upon Catholics to reject any theological argument in favor of converting Jews to the Catholic Faith.

This wholly novel and heretical thesis was hailed by the US. Bishop's Office of Communications on Aug. 13 as another step in "the growing respect for the Jewish tradition that has unfolded since the Second Vatican Council." The Boston Globe, perhaps one of the most anti-Catholic and bigoted newspapers in the country, in a front page article entitled "Catholics reject evangelization of Jews" by Michael Paulson, lost all composure and described the document as an official alteration of Catholic teaching: "The Catholic Church, which spent hundreds of years trying forcibly to convert Jews to Christianity, has come to the conclusion that it is theologically unacceptable to target Jews for evangelization." (Aug. 13, p. 1) Cardinal Keeler greeted the document with these words, "This joint reflection marks a significant step forward in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish community in this country." However, it should be clear to all informed Catholics that no committee report from any ecclesiastical body can alter the teaching of the Church.

These reports concerning the document are not exaggerations, however scandalous they may appear to the reader; for the argument advanced in "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" (hereafter ROCM), while attempting an over-haul the faith has in fact keel-hauled it; it eviscerates the truth of the Catholic Faith and the claims of Christ Jesus to be the Messiah by twisting the plain sense of scripture and by advancing concepts wholly at odds with the teaching of Christ and His Church.

To understand how grave and false is the thesis advanced in ROCM, it is sufficient to outline and examine the theological argument it propounds among the many quotes and footnotes of the document published by the USCCB. Such a study will show that it bases itself on the assertion that the Mosaic Covenant remains in force, and hence that it remains a source of salvation for Jews who reject Christ and His Church. ROCM does this succinctly in its Introduction, where it advances this argument,

"At the present moment in this process of renewal, the subjects of covenant and mission have come to the forefront. Nostra Aetate initiated this thinking by citing Romans 11:28-29 and describing the Jewish people as "very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made."(1) John Paul II has explicitly taught that Jews are "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,"(2) "the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses,"(3) and "partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked."(4).

Lets examine this argument point by point. First Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document on the relations of the Church to non-Christian religions, which was published on October 28, 1965 says this about Romans 11:28-29, in paragraph 4d,

"As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(cf. Lk. 19:44) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(cf. Rom. 11:28) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(cf. Rom. 11:28-29; cf. Lumen Gentium, AAS, 57 (1965) p. 20 11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(Cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11-32) " (official Vatican WWW Site English text)

Indeed Romans 11:28-29 reads,

"secundum evangelium quidem inimici propter vos secundum electionem autem carissimi propter patres, sine paenitentia enim sunt dona et vocatio Dei."

which I translate as,

"according to the Gospel indeed they are enemies for your sake; but according to election they are very dear on account of the Patriarchs, for without repentance are God's gifts and calling."

As is clear, Romans here does not refer to keeping of the Mosaic Covenant, but rather to the Messiah promised to those who kept it. Indeed the learned Tridentine exegete, Father Cornelius a Lapide in his Commentarium in sacram scripturam, vol IX, writes

"sine paenitentia, in Greek 'ametameleta', that is, "unrepentables", that is immutable. Whence the codex of Basil reads 'ametableta', and the Syriac text renders this "God has not changed His gift and calling". The sense of this verse is this: Though the Jews were already incredulous, God nevertheless did not revoke that, which He gave absolutely, and/or promised, and consequently what He promised the Patriarchs, that is the calling, protection and love towards their sons, and most of all their conversion at the end of the world: for this God will insure these things..."

If one but considers the plain statement of ROCM, regarding Nostra Aetate, it is clear that is has ignored the context completely, namely that "As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(cf. Lk. 19:44) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(cf. Rom. 11:28)" (NA n. 4d). And likewise, Nostra Aetate has ignored completely what St. Paul had written, for he describes his own people under two aspects, that of "being very dear to God on account of the Patriarchs" and "enemies of the gospel" (Rom 11:28). To say that they are very dear to God for the sake of their ancestors, in now way exonerates them for being enemies of the Gospel on account of their personal sin of refusing it. Inasmuch as they continue to refuse it, each and every Jew as a individual, if he refuses it, commits mortal sin and becomes an enemy of the Gospel, just like any believer, Muslim or pagan who likewise rejects it.

Nevertheless Cardinal Keeler is correct, there is a progress going on here; but it is not progressing towards the truth.

Secondly, ROCM refers to a statement made by Pope John Paul II, ("Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany," November 17,1980), of which it quotes only one passage, "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." Without recourse to the document, it is not clear what the Pope intended by this statement.

But to say that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked in the normal manner of speech is contrary to the Faith, as can be clearly seen from scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church.

First, St. Paul himself in the Letter to the Hebrews says that the Prophet Jerimiah foretold the end of the Mosaic Covenant (Heb. 8:7ff), concluding by saying "Now in saying new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end." (Heb. 8:13), the context of which is obviously that now (the now of St. Paul) the Old Covenant had ended. Commenting on this passage Father a Lapide writes, "Since God through Jerimiah says, 'I shall consummate a new covenant', He openly signifies, that the first Mosaic covenant, the one in the time of Jerimiah, would in a little while be antiquated, grow old and fail, and hence not endure."

This reading has always been held in the Catholic Church; hence the infallible ecumenical Council of Florence in the papal bull, Cantate Domino, declared,

"It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, CEASED, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they CANNOT BE OBSERVED without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors." (February 4, 1441--Florentine Calendar--)

It is clear, therefore, that the Pope to ingratiate himself with the Jews has publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith, and that therefore all Catholics are bound not to accept this error; and indeed to reject it completely.. This is further enforced by what the Council of Florence taught in the same Bull,

"It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Mat. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

So, to return to ROCM, it is clear now that it bases its argument on ignoring scripture and on a papal statement that likewise ignores the infallible papal teaching of Pope Eugene IV, to which all Catholics, including the Pope, are required to hold fast.

It continues its line of reasoning by quoting Cardinal Walter Kasper (whose nomination as a Cardinal even Cardinal Ratzinger opposed on doctrinal grounds) in saying:

"The term mission, in its proper sense, refers to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God, who revealed himself in the salvation history with His elected people. Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore, and this is characteristic, there exists dialogue but there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews." (17th Meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in May 2001)

I do not know where Cardinal Kasper gets his definitions, but perhaps he forgets what Our Lord Jesus Christ taught, "No one can come to the Father except through Me". Thus, there is no true Monotheism without Christ and since there is no true faith in Christ except through holding the Catholic Faith, and since properly speaking "mission" means in Sacred Scripture a "sending on God's behalf for the purpose of making His will known," there is no mission except in the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If Cardinal Kasper was correct, the Holy Spirit made a mistake on Pentecost, because among the first 3,000 to convert at the preaching of St. Peter were devout Jews from every nation.

More absurd even than this, ROCM argues that Christ's great Mandate to "baptise all nations" refers only to the Gentiles, since the Greek "ethnos" which means nations in English, is the translation of the Hebrew "goiim" which never refers to the Jewish people. I suppose it is not so improbable to Archbishop Keeler that he has an infallible gift to know what Hebrew words Our Lord used when He spoke on Ascension Thursday, since they are not recorded in any written document; but if you have no trouble in accepting the Archbishop's implicit claim to charismatic gifts, then ROCM will seem perfectly Catholic.

To summarize, the argument of "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" is wholly false. It distorts the plain meaning of scripture--which is a sacrilege according to St. Alphonsus dei Liguori--it elevates to the level of an infallible statement a comment made by Pope John Paul II during a visit to a German synagogue; it implicitly rejects the infallible teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Florence which emphatically states that the terms of the Old Covenant have ended and have been superseded by the New, so much so that to practice them now is a mortal sin; and it propounds an entirely novel definition of "mission", so as to embrace both Old and New Covenant terms in one, as if there were no distinction.

Ought we be shocked at the many statements in ROCM, by the Pope, by Cardinal Kasper and Keeler? Yes. But we ought not take scandal from them. Our Catholic Faith is based not on the faith of men, of whatever office or station in the Church, nor on their opinions, but on the Resurrection of Christ and the infallible teachings of the Church. Let us refute the errors of ROCM and let us pray that our pastors return from the errors they have fallen into, for Our Lord never promised that they would not as men fail, but only that they would not require us to accept their errors as a matter of faith. Let us hold fast to Christ speaking through Pope Eugene IV and thereby discern that He is not speaking to us through ROCM.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
8/16/2002

[narses]

Ping

[NYer]

This is an excellent post for today. In this Sunday's Gospel:

Mt 15:21-28
At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out,
"Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!
My daughter is tormented by a demon."
But Jesus did not say a word in answer to her.
Jesus' disciples came and asked him,
"Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us."
He said in reply,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But the woman came and did Jesus homage, saying, "Lord, help me."
He said in reply,
"It is not right to take the food of the children
and throw it to the dogs."
She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps
that fall from the table of their masters."
Then Jesus said to her in reply,
"O woman, great is your faith!
Let it be done for you as you wish."
And the woman's daughter was healed from that hour.

As I recall, even the early church fathers believed that they were to bring the "good news" only to the Jews, to whom the Messiah had been promised.

Chalk up one more deplorable document from the USCCB this year.

[Polycarp]

These reports concerning the document are not exaggerations, however scandalous they may appear to the reader; for the argument advanced in "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" (hereafter ROCM), while attempting an over-haul the faith has in fact keel-hauled it; it eviscerates the truth of the Catholic Faith and the claims of Christ Jesus to be the Messiah by twisting the plain sense of scripture and by advancing concepts wholly at odds with the teaching of Christ and His Church.

Secondly, ROCM refers to a statement made by Pope John Paul II, ("Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany," November 17,1980), of which it quotes only one passage, "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." Without recourse to the document, it is not clear what the Pope intended by this statement.

But to say that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked in the normal manner of speech is contrary to the Faith, as can be clearly seen from scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church.

All good points here.

It is clear, therefore, that the Pope to ingratiate himself with the Jews has publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith, and that therefore all Catholics are bound not to accept this error; and indeed to reject it completely..

This is why I will never join the extreme traditionalists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please but it seems to me that in one breath, this author notes JPII has been taken out of context, then in the next he uses the same text taken out of context as proof that the Pope has committed heresy (publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith) and that Catholics should reject this "error."

And folks here say I need to get off the fence and join such nonsense as this, typical of the rush of some "traditionalists" to condemn the words and actions of our Pope?

It is the bitterness and bile and blatant errors of "traditionalists" that keeps me firmly in the post-conciliar conservative Catholic camp. I might be an Indult Latin Mass conservative Catholic (whenever possible, which is not often enough) but I will never be the kind of traditionalist Catholic exemplified by this article. It simply goes too far when it states the Pope has committed heresy, i.e., "publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith."

[Theresa]

"Secondly, ROCM refers to a statement made by Pope John Paul II, ("Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany," November 17,1980), of which it quotes only one passage, "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." Without recourse to the document, it is not clear what the Pope intended by this statement."

IMHO, full respect to my beloved Holy Father, the Pope has not been clear and that is a problem. The Vatican IMHO has beating around the bush ever since Vatican II about the status of the Jews. To the Jews they beat around the bush, but to us insiders the bottom line with regard to the status of the Jews is that they are saved by "invincible ignorance." Which of course the Jews can't abide. Who can blame them? To say that God's beloved are invincibly ignorant does not seem at all to be consistent with thier dignity and calling before God. And such nomenclature does not do much to quell anti-Semitism. In fact it can be taken to fuel it. This statement by the bishops, I think is an attempt to come to a decision. It is theological brinksmaship because that is what it takes to get anywhere. Steady your nerves people. Everything will work out fine in the end.

And in the meantime, read the Jews side of the story. It's right there in the document. The story of salvation not all about US and what WE think.

[RobbyS]

In what way are they different from the Orthodox, who claim that the popes were correct up to a certain point in time at whuich they deviated from the truth? With regard to the main point, I ask: How was Jerusalem's rejection of the Messiah fundamentally different from its rejection of the Prophets? God is faithful even when His people are not.

[drstevej]

John 8:24 Jesus tells the Jewish leaders, "Unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins." There were many prophets. ONE Messiah!

[RobbyS]

And this Lord has revoked the promises He made to Israel? Circumcision and keeping the Sabbath may not save them, but He died that they might live.

[Catholicguy]

I want to register my complaint about posting from websites that oppose the Pope. I don't see how posting from their sites in any way advances the Unity of Worship, Doctrine, Authority of the Catholic Church. There exist innumerable sites in union with Rome that cover the same matter that these schismatic websites do, but they do it with a CATHOLIC, not a schismatic, weltanschauung.

Seattle Catholic is infamous as a site that rejects the Bonds of Unity necessary to be Catholic. Br. Alex has written other pieces for them prior to this latest post. I wonder if anyone knows the status of Br. Alex in regards his relationship to the Catholic Church?

[narses]

Noted. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post an "Index" of sites that you feel "oppose the Pope". If the evidence you post with that list is compelling, I will cease posting from those sites.

Until then, may I renew my suggestion that you simply ignore my posts. I deleted you from my ping list as I will delete anyone who dislikes what I post or simply wants off.

[Catholicguy]

An "Index" is a good idea. Thank you. I suggest we put Seattle Catholic on that "Index." Here is a link to one of their editorials to indicate they are outside the Bonds of Unity of Worship, Doctrine, Authority.



http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20010907_Battle_Over_Liturgiam_Authenticam.html

[Catholicguy]

Seattle Catholic is just for starters.

I propose "The Remnant" for inclusion on the "Index" because its editor, Mr. Matt,is an infamous signer/promoter of the "We resist you to the face" Document that breaks the Bond of Authority.

I propose "Catholic Family News" for inclusion on the "Index" because its editor John Vennari is an infamous signer/promoter of the "We resist you to the face" Document that breaks the Bond of Authority.

I propose "The Angelus" for inclusion on the "Index" because it is the mouthpiece of the schismatic SSPX.

The material these STOP (Sites That Oppose Pope) sites deal with is also covered/addressed/analysed by GO (Guaranteed Orthodoxy)sites . I don't think it argueable that it is more helpful to build up the Body of Christ by posting from sites in union with the Pope vs posting from sites that oppose the Pope.

[Catholicguy]

Here is a link to a list that we might consult in building the "Index. " I would appreciate hearing your suggestions of sites that ought to be included on the "Index."


http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/weave2.htm

[cebadams]

BTTT

[ultima ratio]

But you are fighting the wrong people. Your quarrel is not with traditionalists--who merely oppose what has not been handed-down, who oppose what is obviously novel and contrary to what has always been understood and taught. No, your quarrel is with those who teach these new doctrines. When has the Catholic Church ever taught that the Jews do right to await their messiah--when it is clearly understood by all that they are waiting for someone who is other than the Jesus whom they have already rejected?

This is a novel doctrine--and Vatican I warned that "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter so that they might disclose a new doctrine" but only to protect what they have received. (canon 3.) The Pope also took an oath to protect Traditional teachings and not to alter them in any way. Do you seriously believe he has kept this oath?

You are in the position of blaming those who simply point out what is obvious: that the chain of novelties that has poured out of Rome since Vatican II is unprecedented--and destructive of the faith as well as past magisterial teachings. This is cause for alarm--not a time to rally around the Pope who engineers radical innovations in the name of a minor council. Vatican II is being belatedly invoked to legitimize a modernist revolution within the Church.

[ultima ratio]

Baloney. You want to have it all your way and censor Catholic opposition to neo-Catholicism. It is another ploy to silence the Church that had existed for two thousand years--before NewChurch reared its ugly head in 1963. It is not traditionalists who divide the Church--it is the modernists who reject the past and its traditional teachings. Did they suppose they might do this without meeting enormous resistance from the faithful? At first the changes were minor--but now they are coming fast and furious and amount to a new religion. One wouldn't feel such pain and anguish if these changes were fruitful in some way. But we have seen the debacle that has followed, not to speak of systemic corruption at the very top, among bishops and cardinals, with the full knowledge of the Vatican. Why should good Catholics be expected to go along? Thank goodness for a newspaper site like Seattle Catholic. com that publishes the TRUTH, instead of the routine disinformation pouring out of Rome and the local dioceses.

[Polycarp]

When has the Catholic Church ever taught that the Jews do right to await their messiah

I'm actually reading the Pontifical document very carefully, very slowly. So far I've read over half of it, and no where does this document say that the Jews do right to await their messiah, so far.

I think we all need to ignore the media coverage and actually debate the document itself before we accuse Ratzinger of introducing a novel doctrine, right?

[Catholicguy]

7. Remember the comment made by Bro. Alexis Bugnolo relative to my "An Opinion..." file? He said:

"Yes, we should give the Pope every benefit of the doubt. We would give our own natural father as much; why not our spiritual father?"

"Will the real Bro. Alexis, please stand-up..."

[Polycarp]

This is a novel doctrine

Let me clarify:

Yes, I agree that the American USCCB document is heretical, absolutely.

But I'm currently carefully reading the Pontifical Biblical Commission document signed off by Ratzinger.

The Vatican document does NOT say its time to stop evangelizing the Jews.

The Vatican document (from what I have stidied so far, over half the document) does NOT say Jews wait for their messiah is not in vain.

To clarify then...

Yes, this American document is heretical.

No, the Vatican document is not heretical.

[Catholicguy]

What do you think of this article that you posted on 8/18 11:40 p.m?? Do you agree with it? Does it speak for you; is that why you posted it? Is there anything in the post with which you do disagree?

As Polycarp has noted (on 8/18 1:22 p.m.), the author of the article that you selected to post, essentially labels the Pope a heretic. Does your silence indicate agreement? I assume it does because you do not publicly respond to Polycarp's response.

Since Polycarp's observation, you haven't repudiated Bro Alexis' scandalous charge. You have had nearly 24 hours to do so; yet, the only remarks you make are about my complaint about posting from sites not in union with the Pope.

Therefore, I have to conclude you agree with Bro. Alexis.