Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation «Evangelii Gaudium»
#81
(12-02-2013, 02:25 PM)cunjozu Wrote: It is problematic because it puts obedience to one's conscience as a prerequisite for being justified by Grace. That clause makes no distinction between natural law and conscience. Also it denies that fiath in Incarnation and Trinity is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas says that if there is no hinderance on the part of non-believer those mysteries of faith which are necessary for salvation would be revealed to him internally or a missionary would be sent to him as was the case with Cornelius and Peter. This paragraph also says that Holy Spirit is responsible for the rites and signs of non-christian religions, and that He uses them as channels to liberate them from atheistic immanentism. It says that God works in non-christians and thus produces those signs and rites which lead them to Him. If that's not blasphemy and heresy i don't know what is...

I don't see it as particularly in contradiction with the following:
Quote:29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM

Quote:Yet nothing, in fact, has changed;  nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One.  There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others.  To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces.  No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbi...ter-10.htm

In reality, he is merely stating what the Church has always taught: mankind has in them a tendency towards God. In that regard mankind will attempt, through signs, symbols, rites, and rituals to rectify that tendency in truth and fulfillment.

St. Thomas indeed teaches that someone could have the full(er) understanding given by Divine interdiction, but this is by no means what the Church teaches insofar as its conclusion is taken.

At least with non-Christian religions you have something to work with, as it can and often does contain elements of truth. With atheism, the belief there is no God, you have nothing but foolishness and nothing can really be achieved as far as appealing to religious understanding.

Reply
#82
Also, we can find this understanding brought to our knowledge in Sacred Scripture, in Acts 17:

Quote:[21] (Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing some new thing.) [22] But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. [23] For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you: [24] God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; [25] Neither is he served with men' s hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:

[26] And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. [27] That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us
: [28] For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. [29] Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man. [30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance.
Reply
#83
(12-02-2013, 02:25 PM)cunjozu Wrote: It is problematic because it puts obedience to one's conscience as a prerequisite for being justified by Grace. That clause makes no distinction between natural law and conscience. Also it denies that fiath in Incarnation and Trinity is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas says that if there is no hinderance on the part of non-believer those mysteries of faith which are necessary for salvation would be revealed to him internally or a missionary would be sent to him as was the case with Cornelius and Peter. This paragraph also says that Holy Spirit is responsible for the rites and signs of non-christian religions, and that He uses them as channels to liberate them from atheistic immanentism. It says that God works in non-christians and thus produces those signs and rites which lead them to Him. If that's not blasphemy and heresy i don't know what is...
Saying the Old Covenant is still in force is a much clearer case of heresy than this, though, which is relatively ambiguous.
Reply
#84
St. Thomas distinguishes the ceremonial precepts and judicial precepts of the Old Law. He says the ceremonial precepts have been abolished at Christ's coming (I-II q. 103 a. 3) and for a Catholic to observe them is a mortal sin (I-II q. 103 a. 4). Regarding juridical precepts, he says (I-II q. 104 a. 3 c.), contrasting and comparing them with the ceremonial precepts:
Quote:The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only "dead," but also deadly to those who observe them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.

The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above (Article [2]). For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently, when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in Gal. 3:24. Since, however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose of being figures, but for the performance of certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the intention of observing them, as though one were bound by the Law, is prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ has not yet come.
Thus it's clear:
  • To observe the Old Law's ceremonial precepts today is always a grave sin.
  • To observe the Old Law's juridical precepts is sinful only if they are observed "as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law". (St. Thomas realizes that natural law is contained in the Old Law; it is not sinful to observe the natural law. It is sinful to observe it as though you were observing the Old Law.)

I think what needs clarification is what "covenant" is. The OED says (source):
covenant, n. 7. a. Wrote:Scripture. Applied esp. to an engagement entered into by the Divine Being with some other being or persons.

[The Hebrew word bĕrīth is also the ordinary term for a contract, agreement, alliance, or league between men. It is constantly rendered in the Septuagint by διαθήκη ‘disposition, distribution, arrangement’, which occurs in Aristophanes in the sense ‘convention, arrangement between parties’, but usually in classical Greek meant ‘disposition by will, testament’. Accordingly, the Old Latin translation of the Bible (Itala) appears to have uniformly rendered διαθήκη by testamentum, while Jerome translated the Hebrew by foedus and pactum indifferently. Hence, in the Vulgate, the Old Testament has the old rendering testamentum in the (Gallican) Psalter, but Jerome's renderings foedus, pactum elsewhere; the New Testament has always testamentum. In English Wyclif strictly followed the Vulgate, rendering foedus, pactum, by boond, covenaunt, rather indiscriminately, testamentum in the Psalter and New Testament always by testament. So the versions of Rheims and Douay. The 16th cent. English versions at length used covenant entirely in Old Testament (including the Psalter), and Tyndale introduced it into 6 places in the New Testament. These the Geneva extended to 23, and the Bible of 1611 to 22 (in 2 of which Gen. had testament), leaving testament in 14 (in 3 of which Gen. had covenant). The Revised Version of 1881 has substituted covenant in 12 of these, leaving testament in 2 only (Hebrew ix. 16, 17).]

Thus bĕrīth, διαθήκη, fœdus (pactum), covenant are applied to God's engagement with Noah and his posterity, Gen. vi. 18, ix. 9–17; to that made with Abraham and his posterity, Gen. xvii, of which the token was circumcision; to the institution of the Mosaic Law, Exod. xxiv. 7, 8, and to that law or its observance itself, whence the expressions book of the covenant (i.e. of the law), ark of the covenant, blood of the covenant (i.e. of beasts ritually sacrificed), land of the covenant (= promised land, Canaan). The covenant with the Israelites, in its various phases, is commonly called the Old Covenant, in contrast to which the prophets made promise of a new covenant, Jer. xxxi. 31; and this name καινὴ διαθήκη (New Covenant or testament) was, according to St. Luke xxii. 20, applied by Jesus to the new relation to man which God had established in Him. In this sense it is also used by St. Paul and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who contrast these two covenants (Gal. iv. 24, Hebrew viii. 13, ix. 15, etc.), also called by commentators the Temporal and the Eternal Covenant (cf. Hebrew xiii. 20).]
So, it's clear that to say the Old Covenant is still in force implies that even the ceremonial precepts are still in force for the Jews. It also shows that "covenant" also signifies "the institution of the Mosaic Law, Exod. xxiv. 7, 8." To claim the Mosaic Law is still in force is condemned by Heb. 8:13: "Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end."

And by Pope Eugene IV:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence Wrote:The sacrosanct Roman Church ... firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to 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; ... All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.

Fr. Paul Kramer gives more citations, such as Pope Benedict XIV's Ex Quo:
Quote:61. 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. Since, then, the distinction made by the old Law between clean and unclean foods belongs to the ceremonial precepts, it may justly be affirmed that such a distinction no longer exists and ought not be insisted on. It is true that I the holy Apostles forbade the faithful to eat blood or the flesh of animals which had been strangled. This view was expressed by James at the Council of Jerusalem: "Therefore I judge that those of the Gentiles who turn to God should not be disturbed, but that we should write to them to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from unchastity, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood" (Acts 15). But it is clear that this was ordained to remove all occasion of disagreement between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Since this reason has long since vanished, its consequence should also be said to have vanished. "Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. The distinction of clean and unclean foods found in the old Law pertains to the ceremonies which have passed away with the rise of the Gospel. The Apostles' prohibition on food offered to idols, blood, and the meat of strangled animals was suitable at that time to remove cause for disagreement between Jews and Gentiles; but since the reason for this prohibition has ceased to be, the prohibition too has come to an end."
Reply
#85
(12-01-2013, 12:59 AM)Geremia Wrote: Didn't John Paul II also taught that the Old Covenant is still valid? If so, then Fr. Paul Kramer should've considered himself a sedevacantist for a long time now.
Here's something Ratzinger said in his only English-language full-length interview:
Quote:Raymond: Very important. In God And The World, you reflect a little on Dominus Jesus, a document released in 2000.  It was greeted with some controversy, because in it you said, “God did not revoke His covenant to the Israeli people, or the people of Israel, rather; but that Jesus is the Messiah for everyone and therefore, conversion was still necessary, or should be a possibility.”  How do you reconcile those two ideas?

Cardinal: Perhaps, it’s not our possibility to reconcile it, to leave it to God.  Because two things are very clear in the Holy Scripture.  In the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, he clearly says, “The fidelity of God is absolutely clear. He is faithful to His promises.”  And so, the people of Abraham are always God’s people, on the one hand.  And he says also clearly, “All Israel will be saved.”  But, it’s also clear that Jesus is the Savior, not only of the other peoples, He is a Jew and He is the Savior, especially of His Own people.”  St. Bernard of Clairvaux said, “God saved, reserved for Himself, the salvation of Israel.  He will do it in His Own Person.”  And so, we have to leave it to God’s Self, see, convinced and knowing that Christ is Savior of all of His Own people, and of all people.  But how He will do it is in God’s Hand.
I didn't realize the Dominus Jesus discussed the same topic of Evangelli Gaudium 247. ("We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked…").
Reply
#86
I was skimming EG, and some other things popped out at me:
Quote:16. I was happy to take up the request of the Fathers of the Synod to write this Exhortation.[19] In so doing, I am reaping the rich fruits [!] of the Synod’s labours. … Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. [I guess the "fruits" weren't rich enough, then…] It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.
Quote:255. The Synod Fathers spoke of the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. [Which the Syllabus etc. condemned!] This includes “the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public”. [a quote from Benedict XVI] A healthy pluralism [viz., syncretism‽], one which genuinely respects differences and values them [Freemasons value syncretism, not Catholics!] as such, does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism. The respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions. In the long run, this would feed resentment rather than tolerance and peace.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)