Posted on 08/18/2002 11:40:35 AM PDT by 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,
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,
Indeed Romans 11:28-29 reads,
which I translate as,
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
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 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,
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:
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
Logic isn't in you. I post many articles. I agree with some, I disagree with others and many, like this, I agree with parts and disagree with parts. Again, may I suggest you not post to me or about me. Go build your index. Enjoy yourself. But to claim some kind of authority over me or ability to discern what I believe from what I don't post is unwelcome. You have a pattern of building from this kind of unwelcome posting to and about me to outright attacks. For both of our benefit, I implore you to stop.
Logic isn't in you. I post many articles. I agree with some, I disagree with others and many, like this, I agree with parts and disagree with parts. Again, may I suggest you not post to me or about me. Go build your index. Enjoy yourself. But to claim some kind of authority over me or ability to discern what I believe from what I don't post is unwelcome. You have a pattern of building from this kind of unwelcome posting to and about me to outright attacks. For both of our benefit, I implore you to stop.
I think you have obligations you are not meeting. Polycarp highlighted an absolutely indefensile statement made by Bro. Alexis in a piece you chose to post. You have had more than 24 hours to say whether or not you agree with Bro. Alexis. I have asked you and you refuse to answer:
"Therefore, I have to conclude you agree with Bro. Alexis."
You do have to take some responsibility for what you post; especially when you post from sites opposed to the Pope. When you do post from these sites pieces that attack the Pope and, like this one does, calls the Pope a heretic, and you do not post any disagreement with any part of the piece, especially the part where Bro Alexis calls the Pope a heretic, especially when you have not only had ample opportunity to repudiate that scandalous and evil charge but have been asked a direct question as to whether or not you do agree with Bro. Alexis' charge of heresy, then one is both logical and justified in assuming you do agree with the charge of heresy.
Trying to reframe the issue as though I were personally attacking will not suceed. This is not a personal attack. Please address the question I posed to you. Do you or do you not agree with this piece, in general, and specifically, do you agree or disagree with Bro. Alexis' labelling the Pope a heretic?
Standing alone, out of context, they do appear problematic and they do appear to cause needless confusion. This is a typical liberal tactic.
A tactic similar to your BS about the Buddha statue at Assissi, which was immediately removed as soon it was brought to the attention of the Catholic organizers.
But you guys make a living off willfully taking things out of context.
PLEASE, read the entire document before you comment on this any further. I already gave you the link. And since it is a mainstay of liberalism to take texts out of context to give them a meaning they never had, I would hope for better from one calling themselves "Catholic" in more than name only.
But in all honesty, CG, I agree with a good part of what the Brother is saying here.
On the other hand, I would not have posted this, or if I had I would have added the comments I posted above as a warning that I do not agree with it in its entirety.
I read Seattle Catholic as well as Diocese Report. I also read most of the mainstream Catholic sites. That does not make me a schismatic though. Yet I try to be prudent in what I post and give warnings if there are problematic aspects to what I do post.
Narses, you might do well to consider doing likewise so that CG and others do not draw what you perceive to be unwarranted conclusions.
Do you agree with this charge or not?
"'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...'
"Do you agree with this charge or not?"
Are ya askin me?? LOL.
I'm certainly in sympathy with what you're saying, CG.
It would be nice, when posters post items negative towards the pope and the Church, to have some least indication that they are not in agreement with the article.
Though we're always called to try to interpret the actions and words (or lack thereof) as charitably as possible, that doesn't relieve others of the obligation to make themselves as clear as they can. By failing to make clear where we stand, we can draw others into rash judgement.
sitetest
He is right in this regard, CG.
And the one blatant error I pointed out does not disprove the remainder of the article. Much of the article is true.
I think on this article, though it comes from a website known for linking schismatic traditionalists and the author has a known history of statements that could be termed schismatic, you are overstating your case against Narses.
I feel certain that Narses did not realize the point I illuminated before he posted this. Regardless, let's drop it, OK?
"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."
This really isn't difficult. Is the Pope "voicing an opinion contrary to the Faith" or not? If we are to give folks the "benefit of the doubt," why is it these sites never give the benefit of the doubt to the Pope but rather give space to those that attack the Pope and conclude he is, essentially, heretical? Who is supposd to get the benefit of the doubt here? The Pope or the author of the charge the Pope is, essentially, heretical?
There clearly is a double standard operating here and I am pointing that out. Narses can post from sites that habitually attack the normative Mass, an Ecumenical Council and the Vicar of Christ but I must give him the benefit of the doubt? Why? He has never indicated, in any of these articles posted from sites that oppose the Pope, that he disagres with a single word in any of the articles. Come on... To be frank, that is baloney; and it is baloney long ago gone bad.
narses seems to trust you. Please tell him the Pope is not a heretic.
I don't think the Pope a heretic. I think it insane for putative Catholics to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the charge he might be. And I think the Pope, believe it or not, has as much a right to expect to receive the benefit of the doubt at least as much as Narses demands for himself.
I will post an editorial from Seattle Catholic to give folks an idea of their orientation.
Doesn't this evil accusation by Bro. Alexis and the editorial evince compelling evidence Seattle Catholic opposes the Pope? If so, will you agree to stick by your promise to quit posting from Seattle Catholic?
When the editors of "The Remnant" and "Catholic Family News" signed "We resist you to the face," surely that is sufficent and compelling evidence they oppose the Pope and, if so, does that mean you will keep your promise to stop posting from those sites also?
Reading II
Rom 11:13-15, 29-32
Brothers and sisters:
I am speaking to you Gentiles.
Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles,
I glory in my ministry in order to make my race jealous
and thus save some of them.
For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world,
what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Just as you once disobeyed God
but have now received mercy because of their disobedience,
so they have now disobeyed in order that,
by virtue of the mercy shown to you,
they too may now receive mercy.
For God delivered all to disobedience,
that he might have mercy upon all.
St. Paul seems to be of the opinion that the Jews' rejection of the Gospel will cause them not to be saved; but that those who become jealous of the Gentiles' salvation and accept the Gospel will be saved, and raised from the dead.
Likewise, as once the Jews were obedient to God while the Gentiles were disobedient, now the roles have reversed, and the Jews are disobedient while the Gentiles are obedient; which St. Paul takes as a sign of God's mercy toward all.
I don't favor censorship of these sites. I agree with the suggestion that the poster should state clearly what he agrees with or disagrees with in the initial post so that none of us are confused by the poster's intent. That would effectively silence narses, since it is difficult for him to take a stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.