I don't understand this
#21
Man is justified by faith, and not by the law--it's always been that way. The law is not some parallel or alternate way of salvation. Here's what I meant. From St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Galatians:

Quote:Then when he says, But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest, he shows the inability of the Law to snatch us from that curse, for it could not make one just. To show this he makes use of a syllogism in the second figure. Justice is by faith, but the Law is not by faith. Therefore the Law cannot justify. With respect to this, therefore:

First, he states the conclusion when he says, But that in the law no one is justified;
Secondly, the major premiss (v. 11): because the just man lives by faith;
Thirdly, the minor (v. 12).

Therefore he says: I say that by the Law a curse was introduced, and yet the Law cannot extricate one from that curse, because it is obvious that no one is justified before God by the Law, i.e., through the works of the Law. On this point it should be noted that those who rejected the Old Testament took occasion to do so from this word. Hence it must be said that no one is justified in the Law, i.e., through the Law. For through it came the knowledge of sin, as is said in Romans (3:20); but justification came not through it: “By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Rom 3:20).
Reply
#22
(03-02-2010, 12:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-01-2010, 06:24 PM)quoprimumV Wrote: Benedict XVI, God and the World 2000, pages 150-151

"...their No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God,but at the same time we are assured of the faithfulness of God.  They are not excluded from salvation..."

I read this "they are not excluded from salvation" as meaning the Jews aren't cursed for life - they have a chance to convert during their lives just like everyone else.  But even if that is what B16 means, and I hope it is,  I agree it is worded in a way that can confuse people.

Quis, I agree with you that this statement could be read several ways - and that's the problem with so much of the documents of VCII.  Here's another one that jumped out at me.

Benedict XVI, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000:  [W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is
true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of
God in order to be saved……

It certainly does not help when there is ambiguity!
Reply
#23
This is from an audience a few years ago:

Benedict XVI Wrote:In choosing the Twelve, introducing them into a communion of life with himself and involving them in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom in words and works (cf. Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-8; Lk 9: 1-6; 6: 13), Jesus wants to say that the definitive time has arrived in which to constitute the new People of God, the people of the 12 tribes, which now becomes a universal people, his Church.

Appeal for Israel

With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...15_en.html
Reply
#24
(03-02-2010, 05:57 PM)Bellringer Wrote:
(03-02-2010, 01:27 PM)Ignatius_of_Loyola Wrote: Traditional understanding is that because Christ didn't abrogate the Law, the Law still is in force.  Therefore, the Jews still have a way to salvation outside the normal conversion means.   Now this is typically combined with some assumptions about the afterlife (aka, they know the fullness of Truth).

The best analogy is that the Jews missed the climax of the story.  Despite this, they have had most of it, so you can't really say the group missed the boat entirely.  As we all hold, all of history was leading up to that one point in History where God existed among men.

This is by no means the traditional understanding. There is no way to salvation outside of turning to Christ.

Agreed. Christ is what the enter Old Testament and Old Covenant are about. They are nothing if they are not a preparation for Christ. Without Christ the Jews have nothing. They cling merely to an incomplete Law which cannot make satisfaction for sin in anyway. Christ meant it ehenHe said that no one comes to the Father unless it is through Him. He didn't make a an exception clause about the Jews.

So much of Paul's writings in the NT are statements and restatements of how the old Law is useless without Christ. It's like trying to get to heaven by hanging up crucifixes and lighting votive candles while beleiving neither on sacramentals or the salvific power of the Son of God.
Reply
#25
(03-02-2010, 02:51 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Man is justified by faith, and not by the law--it's always been that way, even before the incarnation. The law is not some parallel or alternate way of salvation. Here's what I meant. From St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Galatians:

Quote:Then when he says, But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest, he shows the inability of the Law to snatch us from that curse, for it could not make one just. To show this he makes use of a syllogism in the second figure. Justice is by faith, but the Law is not by faith. Therefore the Law cannot justify. With respect to this, therefore:

First, he states the conclusion when he says, But that in the law no one is justified;
Secondly, the major premiss (v. 11): because the just man lives by faith;
Thirdly, the minor (v. 12).

Therefore he says: I say that by the Law a curse was introduced, and yet the Law cannot extricate one from that curse, because it is obvious that no one is justified before God by the Law, i.e., through the works of the Law. On this point it should be noted that those who rejected the Old Testament took occasion to do so from this word. Hence it must be said that no one is justified in the Law, i.e., through the Law. For through it came the knowledge of sin, as is said in Romans (3:20); but justification came not through it: “By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Rom 3:20).
Reply
#26
I'd like to post here some quotations which back up the OP's statement that there are real problems in how some very high ranking officials in the Church address the salvation of the Jews.

Cardinal Walter Kasper speaking as the papally appointed President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relation with the Jews stated, "...the old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council.  For us Christians today, the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality.... Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises....Therefore - and this is characteristic - there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews.  There is dialogue with Jews; no mission in this proper sense of the word toward them."  Address the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, May 1, 2001.

Cardinal Francis George has stated, "...the Church has also sinned against the Jewish people, first of all, in teaching that God's covenant with Israel is no longer valid for them..."
"The Sins of the Church: God's Forgiveness and Human Memories" in Catholic New World, March 19, 2000.

Papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, speaking about the content of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible said, "The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament, and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too.  It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right."  He goes on to say that, "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew."  This same spokesman went on to say in the New York Times that, "Everything in the report is now considered part of official church [sic] doctrine."  (Of course, it isn't)

These are just a few statements that are troubling.  Cardinal John O'Connor gave his blessing to a young man named Stephen who was converting from Catholicism to Judaism on the television program Nightline.  He went on to say, "I think that his mother is peaceful in his choice, and I think God is smiling on the whole thing."
Vennari, "Cardinal O'Connor Blesses Apostasy" p. 3,22

Add to this the language of the Good Friday prayer which calls for Jews to continue to grow in their convenant and certain language of recent papal documents or quotations that are somewhat ambiguous as to the situation of the Jews.  Then Cardinal Ratzinger speaks of "insurmountable impediments" which can keep the Jews from converting while still resting in the favor of God and, seemingly, gaining salvation.  I do not want to speak for Cardinal Ratzinger, but the quotations are confusing especially this one, "[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which is he not blameworthy, to preclude it.  However....Christ in history affects us all, even those who are opposed or cannot encounter Christ.  This is a reality that transforms history; it is something important for others, without violating their conscience."  
"Are Believers of Other Religions Saved?" Zenit news story, September 5th, 2000.

Now take into account the innumerable "Super Seders" or ecumenical meetings with Jews in which both faiths are presented as equally true and salvific and you've got some real confusion going on in the Church.  It's no wonder that many of the faithful are confused on the subject.  They either hear outright crap which contradicts what the Church has previously taught (albeit from individual men and not in any binding manner) or they hear ambiguities which sound like they could be heretical.
Reply
#27
What a quote, Walty!

Cardinal Francis George has stated, "...the Church has also sinned against the Jewish people, first of all, in teaching that God's covenant with Israel is no longer valid for them..."
"The Sins of the Church: God's Forgiveness and Human Memories" in Catholic New World, March 19, 2000.

Wow - I bet this quote has some saints rolling in their incorrupt graves.....The Church is the spotless, incorrupt Bride of Christ - she is the pillar of Truth, she cannot err, and she especially can not "sin."  Others have said that the Church was wrong, Nestorius, Luther, Galileo, but I should be very reluctant to join their company.  That's a biggy. 

I found one way that this error was perpetuated.  In the Douay Rheims translation, scripture says:

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins."

this is the Latin Vulgate
28.  hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum

Notice the word "novi"


This is Strongs literal translation
|5124| this
   |1063| For
   |2076| is
   |3588| the
   |0129| blood
   |3450| of me
   |3588| of the
   |2537| New
   |1242| Covenant,
   |3588| which
   |4012| concerns
   |4183| many
   |1632| is being poured
   |1519| out
   |0859| for forgiveness
   |0266| of sins.
29.

If you go to the New American Bible (The Catholic Study Bible) and other modern translations, you will find the word "New" has been removed, leaving only, "this is my blood of the covenant."  It implies there is only one covenant and it continues.  I found this word missing in one of the Ignatius Bibles and others. 

(Additional note:  see the use by Christ of "many" instead of "all")
Reply
#28
I wonder what sort of reasoning is given for removing the "New". The glory of modern biblical exegesis, surely.
Reply
#29
(03-01-2010, 02:37 PM)Petertherock Wrote: So, I was reading one of the letters of St. Paul today and I am paraphrasing here but he says that the Jews cannot be justified unless they believe in Jesus Christ. Now, I know Popes and Cardinals and Bishops and Priests are a lot smarter than I am and they know a lot more about theology then I ever will but to me, Paul is saying unless the Jews believe in Jesus they will not go to Heaven. Yet, the VII popes and many Cardinals, Bishops and Priests say that the Jews go to Heaven just because they are Jews. This sounds like a heresy to me, but I am just a dumb lay man.

Where am I going wrong?
Suffice it to say that anyone who goes to Heaven, goes through the Grace and Passion of Christ and by being in or entering into His Catholic Church.
Reply
#30
(03-02-2010, 01:27 PM)Ignatius_of_Loyola Wrote: Traditional understanding is that because Christ didn't abrogate the Law, the Law still is in force.  Therefore, the Jews still have a way to salvation outside the normal conversion means.   Now this is typically combined with some assumptions about the afterlife (aka, they know the fullness of Truth).

The best analogy is that the Jews missed the climax of the story.  Despite this, they have had most of it, so you can't really say the group missed the boat entirely.  As we all hold, all of history was leading up to that one point in History where God existed among men.


St. Alphonsus: “The religion of the Jews, although formerly holy and revealed by God, was at that time [even in the primitive Church, after the coming of Christ] not less manifestly obsolete and false.” (Victories of the Martyrs, p. 24.)

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756:
“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed
without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)