Bishop Rifan of Campos concelebrates the Novus Ordo

I don't trust that these statements are accurate. If they are, they are conformable with Christian Doctrine anyways.

Regarding Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ", NewRome said the pope did not say, "It is as it was", but if he did say it it, it was not meant for public knowledge.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," John Kerry

Three peas in a pod.

If they are, they are conformable with Christian Doctrine anyways.

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I probably would have emphasized the publication of the Catholic Catechism as one of,if not the most important contribution of any Pope since Trent.

Thanks for your kind words.

I agree with you about the catechism. Had I spent more time pondering the contributions of the pope, the catechism would probably rank as highest on the long list of postive achievements. It is invaluable and sublime.

"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."

Thanks. I've always respected your opinions and knowlege so I was very interested in what specifically you think was heretical.

Quite apart from 2,000 years of Magisterial teaching that the New Covenant did truly fulfil, replace and supercede the Old Covenant, we have the following clear testimony of Holy Scripture:

In a nutshell, the offending idea is "God never revoked the Old Covenant."

It may be of interest that the Catechism,( 1965-1974 ), and I would recommend a careful reading that instantly rewards ( read the scripture references as well), does not say that the Old Covenant has been replaced. In fact, 1968 says that "....far from abolishing or devalueing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law...."

But maybe I'm off target. Are the terms Old Covenant and Old Law interchangeable?

My sense is that because the Church has always valued the Decalogue of the Old Covenant, the pope must be talking about another aspect of the covenant that he is mistaken about.

What he failed to mention is the countless bishops and cardinals John Paul II has appointed who have robbed people of their faith, destroyed the innocence of children and allowed continued and nearly unfettered alteration of the Mass to the point is is hardly recognizable as Catholic.

You had asked what I was grateful about.;o)

"It may be of interest that the Catechism,( 1965-1974 ), and I would recommend a careful reading that instantly rewards ( read the scripture references as well), does not say that the Old Covenant has been replaced. In fact, 1968 says that "....far from abolishing or devalueing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law...."

But maybe I'm off target. Are the terms Old Covenant and Old Law interchangeable?

My sense is that because the Church has always valued the Decalogue of the Old Covenant, the pope must be talking about another aspect of the covenant that he is mistaken about."

There is much more behind what you have said, that I don't have time to go into now - but I think you are on the right lines. "Covenant" and "Law" are not strictly interchangeable, but are often used in interchangeable senses - particularly by scholars who have a modernist axe to grind.

Personally, I think he was set up on this issue by those who know how to exploit the VII timebombs (so dear to the heart of Schillebeeckx). What I would dearly love to know is who wrote those speeches that are cited in ROCM!!! - will try to get back with more detail later.

Firstly though, I will have to say that I don't quite agree with CouncilofTrent that Assisi and kissing the Qu'ran were acts of heresy. The latter was more like an act of apostasy.

*The Pope acted like an apostate? Sheesh. What a bunch of bull. Search "should the Pope kiss the Koran?" at Biblical evidence for Catholicism (david Armstrong's site). Also, the High Schooler Apolonio Latar has written a good defense of the action of the Pope.

In the first centuries of our faith, Christians were prepared to be put to death rather than offer incense to the Roman emperor - our liturgical calendar and breviary are filled with the glorious witness of these martyrs. How appalling then, that a Bishop of Rome, without any compulsion as an excuse, should kiss that demon-spawned tome of filth and lies called the Qu'ran. That those lips which were given to venerate the Sacred Gospels in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be pressed into such sullied use is an abomination and cause of grave scandal to the faithful. I sincerely hope he has repented of this.

It is you who needs to repent for unjustly judging the Pope acted like an apostate. The only ones I see taking scandal are the self annointed experts - whose expertise and judgement is sorely lacking here. The Pope has forgotten more theology then the lot of you will ever come to know. It is also useful to note that the Pope was not offering incense or engaging in any liturgical action when he kissed the Koran.

But, as to the matter of speaking heresy, I offer this example where he is quoted in an official document of the USCCB - Reflections on Covenant and Mission:

"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"

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

*The Pope is right, his critics formal (if not material) heretics.

There are other areas which one could dwell on such as:

i) His teaching that hell is a state, not a place and thereby denying the physical resurrection of the body which we profess in the creed.

Pope - "More than a place, Hell is the state of the one who freely and finally removes himself from God, the source of life and joy."

* Why are you among those who judge the Pope a heretic when, time after time, it is proven he is a Holy Man whose intellect and orthodoxy is beyond reproach? Sheesh. This is quite maddening. The Pope is always presumed guilty. I'll give the schismatics their due. They have "effectively" sown discord, enmity and division to the point where far too many Catholics act as though we live under a heretical/apostate Living Magisterium. That that condition would mean Jesus has abandoned His Universal Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth seems an inconsequential side note to the endless unjust charges against the Pope, the Council and the Mass.

Again, it needs pointing out that those who fail in this epoch of testing is not the Pope and the Living Magisterium, it is those who judge them heretical. They are the ones who have lost the Faith.

ii) His tendency toward universalism in some of his documents where the implication is made that all men will be saved.

*"tendency towards universalism" is evidence of heresy?

However, as I said above, I don't have the time to look up the original sources of these, so if anyone else wants to do the legwork, please do.

* Try and prove the Poe is a heretic is your suggestion? LOL Yes, I guess that is what it has come down to in these pages. Let us set about proving the Pope is a heretic. THat is the traditional action of a member of the Body of Chirst LOL

I suggest your time would be better spent dropping the unjust assaults against a good and holy man whose understanding of theology is light years beyond yours and whose orthodoxy, outside of the insane attacks and charges of the schismatics and protestants (kissing cousins)is unquestioned.

Or, perhaps you really do think we Catholics have been burdened with heretics/apostates since Pope Pius XII and that Vatican II will be "repealed" and a future council will declare Popes John 23 - Pope Paul II heretics and the restored Liturgy an abomination blah, blah, blah. If so, call the Remnant today. They are looking for a few good schismatic men.

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men ...

5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

Maybe we can dig-up Pope St. Gregory and try him as a heretic :)

Note: Many Thanks to Steve Kaster for his help

Adam Kolasinski wrote an article called: "Exaggeration: the Downfall of Both Neo-Catholics and Traditionalists" which can be found at:

http://catholicdefender.com/Apologetics/Traditionalism/exaggeration.htm

First of all, let me start by saying that Adam is one of the few "traditionalists" who I admire. I don't agree with some of his beliefs, but I admire him for not being so radical like the rest of the self-styled traditionalists. When I was in the SSPX email list, he was one of the few people who tried to calm the Rad-Trads down, by making them remember that they are not even theologians and that they need to submit to the Magisterium. However, I still disagree with some of his views. I will only respond to some of the things he pointed out. He says:

"Unfortunately, both sides exaggerate the scope of the dispute and the errors of their opponents, and such exaggeration causes the dispute to become more heated than necessary, often to the extent of becoming uncharitable. Both sides need to keep in mind that no one in this dispute is denying any doctrine that demands the assent of faith, divine or ecclesiastical."

I would say that some Rad-Trads are close or seem to violate the doctrine taught by Vatican 1:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world." (Session 4, Chapter 3, n 2)

They may not say they deny this, but by dissenting from Vatican 2, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, they at least imply disobedience. Some would even dare to call John Paul II a heretic, which they don't have any authority to do so. Adam Kolasinski agrees:

"To be sure, some traditionalists, such as those who deny that John Paul II is the true pope or those who deny the jurisdiction of their duly appointed local ordinary, are in fact schismatic, or at least dangerously close. Some, such as those who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo mass (the new rite of mass promulgated by Paul VI in 1969), are dangerously close to heresy."

So on that point we agree. He then says:

"Informed parties on both sides know that Vatican 2 did not teach infallibly, since it has been acknowledged by the papacy numerous times that Vatican 2 defined no doctrine, and it is only when teaching definitively that councils (and popes) are infallible (c.f. Canon 749 of the 1983 Code, Vatican 1, Lumen Gentium, etc., etc.). Of course, the fact that Vatican 2 taught nothing infallibly is lost on a few confused neo-Catholic web essayists such as Shawn McElhinney, who, apparently unable to recognize an oxymoron, thinks Vatican 2 issued decrees that were somehow “definitive in non-defined form,”(http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/distinctions.html)"

I would dispute this. Vatican 2 taught infallibly by means of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. And I would also defend Shawn's case. It is not an oxymoron that something can be "definitive in non-defined form". By my guess, Shawn here is speaking of acts of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Ratzinger says:

"The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining... In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter."(CDF Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei, 9)

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. says:

"Actually, if we consider the act of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive either by a defining act or by a non-defining act. First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of confirmation and reaffirmation (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an ex cathedra definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium. "(The Magisterium and Dissent, Section 1, no. 2)

Fr. Adriano Garuti also says:

"... a doctrine can be taught not only by a strictly defining act but also by a non-defining act, as in the case of a teaching (or practice connected with a teaching) of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter, which can be confirmed or reaffirmed as such by the Roman Pontiff as Head of the College of Bishops, without recourse to a solemn definition: such a doctrine is also taught infallibly and is therefore definitive tenenda, although not de fide credenda. " (Problem of Dissent in Light of the 'Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profession of Faith')

So it isn't an oxymoron, but the truth. Adam goes on to say:

"Part of the reason for such exaggeration on the part of neo-Catholics is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what “religious submission” entails. Many hold to the mistaken notion that a Catholic must intellectually assent to all non-infallible teachings, without exception. "

I don't think we misunderstand what "religious submission" entails. Ratzinger speaks of religious submission as a "response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith." (Donum Veritatis, 23)

And Fr. Most speaks of religious submission, "What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates." (Hierarchy of Truths and Four Levels of Teaching)

Adam goes on to quote Donum Veritatis:

"The Church teaches otherwise. For instance, the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, issued by the CDF, states:The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions"

But he fails to quote further. Donum Veritatis goes on to say:

"When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission." (DV, 24)

And that is the problem of the Rad-Trads. Some act contrary to what is said to be "contrary to the truth" above.

Adam goes on to quote more of Donum Veritatis:

"If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented…"

First of all, that statement tells us to make the Magisterial authorities aware of our problems. It does not tell us to publically criticize or dissent the Magisterium as in blogs, articles, newspapers, websites, etc. He does not quote the rest, which is very crucial:

"In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth." (DV, 30)

Many people have criticized my post: "Is it Okay to Complain". I admit, I never read Donum Veritatis before I wrote that. All I did is deep prayer and use "Catholic common sense" I learned from Tradition. And by the grace of God, I was right.

Adam goes on to quote more of Donum Veritatis:

"It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question…"

And he also does not quote the rest, which I believe is essential to the debate. Ratzinger goes on to say:

"For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail." (DV, 31)

Again, it does not tell us to dissent publically, but should practice reverent silence. Adam also quotes a protocol with the FSSP. This is the same as above. One can make the Magisterium aware of their problems, but at the same time, avoid the mass media. Public opposition is even called "dissent" (DV, 32). John Paul II also says:

"... it is certainly necessary to distinguish the attitude of theologians who, in a spirit of cooperation and ecclesial communion, present their difficulties and questions, and thus positively contribute to the maturing of reflection on the deposit of faith, form the public stance of opposition to the Magisterium, which is described as "dissent"; the latter tends to set up a kind of counter-magisterium, presenting believers with alternative positions and forms of behavior."Magisterium Exercises Authority in Christ's Name, Address to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 24 November 1995, 4)

To be continued...

posted by Apolonio at 2:52 PM

*Mr. Latar is a high school student. If more Catholics read this faithful high school adolescent rather than the innumerable schismatic adults all about us, we would be better off - and some of us might even begin exhibiting Catholic traits - such as fidelity, obedience, trust, thankfulness, joy etc.

Jesus' promises never fail. He has overcome the world. Accept the truth and peace He is.

Stop acting like the pelagian schismatics (Pelagius regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), when steeled by asceticism (traditionalism), as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue.) who think that if their own opinions don't hold sway then our Faith will perish. They have no authority. They have no Faith. They have no Hope. THey think Jesus has abandoned His Church.

http://apolonio.blogspot.com/

What a bunch of bull. Search "should the Pope kiss the Koran?" at Biblical evidence for Catholicism (david Armstrong's site).

How does David Armstrong escape your judgement of being a "self-annointed expert"?

The only ones I see taking scandal are the self annointed experts - whose expertise and judgement is sorely lacking here.

The only ones I see trying to sweep this under rug are those who believe that the Pope is actually God disguised as John Paul II. What "expertise" does David Armstrong have to determine that the Pope kissing the Koran is nothing less than the disgrace it was? Who decided that "judgement" in this matter was given to him alone? He is no more qualified to judge this act as a good thing, any more than anyone else who thinks kissing the Koran was a very bad thing to do.

It is also useful to note that the Pope was not offering incense or engaging in any liturgical action when he kissed the Koran.

No, it isn't useful. It's weak. Pathetically weak. By your logic so as long as a priest doesn't do it on the altar, there's nothing wrong with him praising Satanism in his spare time.

*"tendency towards universalism" is evidence of heresy?

Critiquing the outward actions of the Pope is evidence of schism?

"*The Pope acted like an apostate? Sheesh. What a bunch of bull. Search "should the Pope kiss the Koran?" at Biblical evidence for Catholicism (david Armstrong's site). Also, the High Schooler Apolonio Latar has written a good defense of the action of the Pope."

A good defense of an act of apostasy? You mean "good excuses" written by ultra-montanists who believe that the Pope is some kind of demi-god who is incapable of personal sin! Join the real world - what the hell do you think he does in confession every week? Does he tell his confessor how infallible and impeccable he has been?

"It is also useful to note that the Pope was not offering incense or engaging in any liturgical action when he kissed the Koran."

So would you kiss the Qu'ran or let your children see you kiss it outside a liturgy? If not, why not?

"121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked....

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism)."

Yes - the Catechism! That is probably where his speech writer took the quote "for the Old Covenant has never been revoked" from. But reading it in context, is the CCC talking about the Old COVENANT or the Old TESTAMENT?

If you had any clue at all about the condemnation of Marcion, you would know that his heresy was to deny the inspiration of the OT and he even claimed that the God of the OT was a different God from the God of the NT. It is therefore obvious from the context of a chapter on SCRIPTURE that when the CCC says "the Old Covenant has never been revoked" it is talking about the books of the Old Testament NOT THE MOSAIC COVENANT.

That the CCC uses the word "covenant" where, in context, it really means to say "testament", is an appalling gaff. It may be put down to:

a) Bad translation into English - the translators assuming that "Covenant" and "Testament" are always interchangeable in common usage. (Remember the CCC was originally written in FRENCH and then back-translated into Latin and English!)

or

b) It was deliberately placed there as a "timebomb" to reflect a desired or perceived change in the Church's teaching that the Mosaic Covenant is a valid means of salvation.

If it is genuinely intended to mean the latter, then where does this novel doctrine come from? I have checked the documents of Vatican II thoroughly and it is nowhere in Lumen Gentium or Nostra Aetate. The reference in footnote 92 refers only to Dei Verbum where the value and inspiration of the OT is rightly affirmed. BUT EVEN THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TEACH THAT THE OLD "COVENANT" HAS NOT BEEN "REVOKED".

The CCC itself cites no source whatsoever for this statement that the "Old Covenant has never been revoked" - the only reference which has any pertinence is "The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism)." This though is clearly referring to "books of the Bible" - not the Mosaic Covenant.

I do know of some "scholars" in the U.S. and Germany, who, at the time the Catechism was written, were, and still are, proposing that the the OLD Covenant is still valid for the Jews. Their reason? Because the NT "is filled with anti-semitism" and is therefore full of error.

Specifically they reject the following scriptures as being ERRORS:

" Eph. 2,14 "For he is our peace, he who made both one (Jew & Gentile) and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, (15) ABOLISHING THE LAW WITH ITS COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES, that he might create in himself one new person IN PLACE OF THE TWO, thus establishing peace, (16) and might reconcile both with God, IN ONE BODY, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it."

Heb 7,12 "When there is a change of the priesthood, there is necessarily a change of the law as well."

Heb 7,18 "There is, on the one hand, THE ABROGATION OF AN EARLIER COMMANDMENT because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God."

Heb 8,9 "...not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND SO I HAD NO CONCERN FOR THEM, says the Lord."

Heb 8,13 "In speaking of a "new covenant", he has made the first one OBSOLETE. And what is obsolete and growing old is close to DESTRUCTION." "

And that is the logical consequence of the Pope's words, if indeed, he did intend them to mean the Old "Covenant" rather than the Old "Testament". The Pope would be teaching doctrine that is contrary to scripture on the basis of a naive reading of the CCC - a reading that you fell for, hook, line and sinker!

However, it is almost certain that the Pope did not write these speeches himself - it is quite likely that they were written by the "experts" on Jewish relations from the countries concerned, and that they alighted on this faulty text in the Catechism like bees to honey. This is why I said earlier that the Pope was probably set up, and specifically did not ascribe an heretical intent to him!

One of his major failings has always been that he trusts the people around him too much and has poor judgement in appointments.

Do you then also reject the idea that the Old Covenant is "obsolete" and "abrogated" as Scripture testifies?

Do you know where else the CCC may have taken the offending phrase from?

Are you siding with Eugene Fisher, Paula Friedrikson and Walter Kasper who reject the inerrancy of scripture?

Why don't you answer the points made rather than responding with your personal attacks of "schismatic" and "protestant", when you don't even understand what these words mean?

"It is also useful to note that the Pope was not offering incense or engaging in any liturgical action when he kissed the Koran."

Aww c'mon guys, doesn't anyone have the photo of the apostate-in-chief feeding "sacred orange peels" to the "snake gods" in West Africa???

C'mon guys, please, please....

For dear ole' sinkie...

;-)

good defense of an act of apostasy? You mean "good excuses" written by ultra-montanists who believe that the Pope is some kind of demi-god who is incapable of personal sin! Join the real world - what the hell do you think he does in confession every week? Does he tell his confessor how infallible and impeccable he has been?

* Those faithful catholics acted like Christians in defending their father, the Pope. You might recconsider and imitate their actions as your arrogant and unjust accusations are the antithesis of Christian Catholic action.

*Now, who the hell are you to describe the Pope's actions as apostasy?

"It is also useful to note that the Pope was not offering incense or engaging in any liturgical action when he kissed the Koran."

So would you kiss the Qu'ran or let your children see you kiss it outside a liturgy? If not, why not?

*Sure. If it meant I was exhibiting towards them a respect for their religiosity which mught further a dialogue which might head-off a bloodbath.

"121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.... That the CCC uses the word "covenant" where, in context, it really means to say "testament", is an appalling gaff.

.* Yes, I am sure they rue the day they wrote it without your imput.

It was deliberately placed there as a "timebomb" ...

*Yes, that is the purpose of the Catechcism. To trick us.

BUT EVEN THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TEACH THAT THE OLD "COVENANT" HAS NOT BEEN "REVOKED".

The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans

Chapter 11

God hath not cast off all Israel. The Gentiles must not be proud but stand in faith and fear.

1 I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias, how he calleth on God against Israel?

3 Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars. And I am left alone: and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal.

5 Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.

7 What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it. And the rest have been blinded.

8 As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, until this present day.

9 And David saith: Let their table be made a snare and a trap and a stumbling block and a recompense unto them.

10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see: and bow down their back always.

11 I say then: Have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid! But by their offence salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them.

12 Now if the offence of them be the riches of the world and the diminution of them the riches of the Gentiles: how much more the fulness of them?

13 For I say to you, Gentiles: As long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry,

14 If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh and may save some of them.

15 For if the loss of them be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them and art made partaker of the root and of the fatness of the olive tree:

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root: but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.

20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.

21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps also he spare not thee.

22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24 For if thou were cut out of the wild olive tree, which is natural to thee; and, contrary to nature, wert grafted into the good olive tree: how much more shall they that are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in.

26 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.

27 And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers.

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.

30 For as you also in times past did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy, through their unbelief:

31 So these also now have not believed, for your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy.

32 For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.

33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!

34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?

35 Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?

36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.

* I don't read a covenant being revoked.

...a naive reading of the CCC - a reading that you fell for, hook, line and sinker!

* Yeah, I am in love with the Catechism and therefore blind to its sly and devious heresies.

. This is why I said earlier that the Pope was probably set up, and specifically did not ascribe an heretical intent to him!

*So what? You said he spoke/wrote heresies. That means, in the real world where I live, you think him a heretic.

One of his major failings has always been that he trusts the people around him too much and has poor judgement in appointments.

* Yeah, poor old dufus. What does he know? He is only a brilliant theologian who has a Doctorate in Theology, has writen volumes of brilliant theology and who is generally acknowledged as a personally holy man. If only he was receiving instructions from Free Republic's stable of traditionalist theologians....

Why don't you answer the points made rather than responding with your personal attacks of "schismatic" and "protestant", when you don't even understand what these words mean?

I know what those words mean and my use of them was accurate. As for "personal attacks" the Pope is subjected to them in these pages daily.

My Pastor warned me against going online and he made me promise I would not use his name. He told me the internet forums like these are filled with nutjobs who think they are well-informed and more Catholic than the Pope who are quick to attack him.

Boy oh boy, was he ever correct.

I'll post something from "The Catholic Legate" (Although, he is just probably just another Pope-worshipping idiot too) re this issue

http://catholic-legate.com/dialogues/oldcovenant.html

"There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is to them my covenant: when I shall take away their sins."

Here St. Paul is talking about the promise of THE NEW COVENANT to Israel - not the Old Covenant!

"28 As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance."

The gift and calling to the NEW COVENANT is what is at issue here - no-one denies that the Jews are called to the New Covenant - Jesus came for them first. Its only people who claim that the Old Covenant is still in force that would deny them their need for the New.

Are you Stephen Hand? You have confessed that you would kiss the Qu'ran and you have totally dodged the main question - do you accept the inerrancy of these Scriptures?:

" Eph. 2,14 "For he is our peace, he who made both one (Jew & Gentile) and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, (15) ABOLISHING THE LAW WITH ITS COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES, that he might create in himself one new person IN PLACE OF THE TWO, thus establishing peace, (16) and might reconcile both with God, IN ONE BODY, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it."

Heb 7,12 "When there is a change of the priesthood, there is necessarily a change of the law as well."

Heb 7,18 "There is, on the one hand, THE ABROGATION OF AN EARLIER COMMANDMENT because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God."

Heb 8,9 "...not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND SO I HAD NO CONCERN FOR THEM, says the Lord."

Heb 8,13 "In speaking of a "new covenant", he has made the first one OBSOLETE. And what is obsolete and growing old is close to DESTRUCTION." "

"* Yeah, I am in love with the Catechism and therefore blind to its sly and devious heresies."

Do you believe it is infallible?

Read the dialogue I posted from the Catholic Legate.

Post a link to the Magisterial Teaching the Old Covenant is revoked.

Of course I accept the inerrancy of scriptures. What I do not accept is your personal opinions as to what they mean. I rely on the Living Magisterium which Jesus established. I rely on the Catechism.

I think most of the know-it-alls on these pages who attack the Pope do so out of a combination of ignorance and arrogance. (The "traditionalists" are kissing cousins to the protestant pope-baiters)I don't trust them as far as I could throw Jerrold Nadler. They have no authority and they spend way too much time attacking the Pope, the Catechism, the Council and the Mass.

And when their repeated errors are pointed out they just switch topics and tactics.

"Read the dialogue I posted from the Catholic Legate."

I did - Robert Sungenis is absolutely right!

I am aware of one major flaw in my argumentation above, however. My statement that the Pope's speech quoted from the CCC is patently nonsense as the Pope's speech in Mainz was given in 1980!!!!

The CCC obviously took it from his speech. But why then would they not cite it properly?

"Post a link to the Magisterial Teaching the Old Covenant is revoked."

Even better, I'll paste it for you:

" Eph. 2,14 "For he is our peace, he who made both one (Jew & Gentile) and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, (15) ABOLISHING THE LAW WITH ITS COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES, that he might create in himself one new person IN PLACE OF THE TWO, thus establishing peace, (16) and might reconcile both with God, IN ONE BODY, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it."

Heb 7,12 "When there is a change of the priesthood, there is necessarily a change of the law as well."

Heb 7,18 "There is, on the one hand, THE ABROGATION OF AN EARLIER COMMANDMENT because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God."

Heb 8,9 "...not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND SO I HAD NO CONCERN FOR THEM, says the Lord."

Heb 8,13 "In speaking of a "new covenant", he has made the first one OBSOLETE. And what is obsolete and growing old is close to DESTRUCTION." "