What to do with Judaism

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:26 AM']Vatican I makes clear that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is an authoritative, perhaps infallible guide to true doctrine.
[right][snapback]911006[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is not for you or I to decide what constitutes the "unanimous consent of the Fathers". The Church has rejected any proposition that the Jews are guilty of deicide.

It is true that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. But as I said, that is an entirely separate question from the Church's theology regarding Israel as it exists since the time of the Church. There is much nuance here that would require its own treatment.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:34 AM']I must answer that, if the constant practice of the Church and even the authoritative disciplinary actions taken by the Popes were "condemned" as you assert, then certainly one is at liberty to disagree with the pastoral norms laid down to the same end. The citation from [i]Nostra Aetate[/i] clearly indicates that it is making a pastoral recommendation, stating that it wishes "to foster and recommend", &c.
[right][snapback]911011[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The living authority of the Church must be obeyed. Period. The Second Vatican Council did not rest on "pastoral recommendation", but in its own words, developed the doctrine of the Church.

An Ecumenical Council formally called for the dialogue and co-existence of Jews and Christians. Because it did, we know that such concord is not condemned, and that past Papal actions are to be understood in that light.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Amator Veritatis]

The concept that the decree of Florence applies only to Catholics and not to Jews would seem to advocate subjectivism and indifferentism. If the Old Law has been fulfilled, then such is the case objectively, not merely for those who accept the New Law. If the prescripts of the Old Law have passed away, as the Council of Florence decreed, then it has passed away objectively; it does not exempt those who happen to believe in it. This manner of speaking would be folly. The same principles might be applied to any falsehood, e.g., the decrees of Trent regarding the Sacraments only apply to and are only true for Catholics; Protestants or other heretical sects which do not accept such decrees are not included under the anathemas of the Council. Surely this is not the case. It is always dangerous to assert that a theology has only existed for 40 years or really any time period since the rampancy of Modernism or other modern heresies, [i]viz[/i]., indifferentism, liberalism, rationalism [i]et al[/i]. The fact remains that throughout the history of the Church the Fathers and Doctors taught without compromise that the prescripts of the Old Law had passed away and that Jews would be required to convert to Catholicism in order to be saved. The fact that these teachings have been minimised in recent years is not evidence enough to reject them. As I stated, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers renders a matter without error or at least ensures that it is cannot be disputed.

[Era Might]

I feel like I'm not expressing myself clearly, and if not, I apologize. Like I said, it's hard, because there's a lot of nuance and background material that needs to be said, that would take a whole treatment. It's hard to just sum everything in up in a post.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:46 AM']The same principles might be applied to any falsehood, e.g., the decrees of Trent regarding the Sacraments only apply to and are only true for Catholics; Protestants or other heretical sects which do not accept such decrees are not included under the anathemas of the Council.
[right][snapback]911019[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The "literal" sense of a text is not what the words say, but what the writers meant. It's not so much that what Florence had to say has nothing to do with Israel today, but that it was not a treatment of Israel, it was a treatment of Christians and the law. What it says cannot be cited alone in the context of Israel, because Israel has its own unique considerations which require a theological treatment. This treatment came at the Second Vatican Council, and has continued since.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

--Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration "Nostra Aetate"[/quote]

As you quoted, the synod which was the Second Vatican Council wished "to foster and recommend" things. It did not decree them as a theological principle.


[quote]An Ecumenical Council formally called for the dialogue and co-existence of Jews and Christians. Because it did, we know that such concord is not condemned, and that past Papal actions are to be understood in that light. [/quote]

On the contrary, all actions of the present must be understood in the light of Tradition. Certainly we do not understand the articles of the Creed in light of Pope Benedict's latest locution or even in light of statements from the Second Vatican Council. Instead, we understand any statements made in relation to the articles laid down in the Creed in light of the decrees of Nicaea, [i]et al[/i]. This principle, that current teachings or statements be understood in light of Tradition, is, in my opinion, well established. The concept that previous teachings would be understood in the light of current statements is unsubstantiated.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:51 AM']This principle, that current teachings or statements be understood in light of Tradition, is, in my opinion, well established. The concept that previous teachings would be understood in the light of current statements is unsubstantiated.
[right][snapback]911022[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Old Testament is incomprehensible if not understood in light of the New.

The Magisterium in past centuries MUST be understood in light of the new, or else it will lead to our setting the Magisterium against eachother. If, for example, someone quotes something from 1500, and something from 2000 condemns it, we must understand that previous statement accordingly. Either conditioned by historical circumstance, or not infallible, or whatever.

This task inevitably falls on theologians, as it requires great context.

[Era Might]

In his Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei", John Paul highlights that we must understand Tradition in its proper light:

[quote]The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".[/quote]

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]The "literal" sense of a text is not what the words say, but what the writers meant. [/quote]

I find it a bit curious that you are able to determine the intent of the fathers of the Council of Florence, even seemingly contrary to the text itself, but that you find it difficult to believe that one might be able to determine the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though the concept that the unanimous consent of the Fathers must be held as authoritative was taught by the First Vatican Council, indicating that such a position can necessarily be deciphered. By the way, even if a person might be able to understand the intent of the fathers of a Council--as if such an intent could possibly be different from the text itself, much less contrary to it--on what basis would the intent become authoritative rather than the text itself? The authority of the Pope, a Council, [i]et al[/i]., is based on the decrees themselves, which Our Lord states in His commission to St. Peter, saying "whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", &c., not whatsoever thou shalt intend to bind, &c. Cf., St. Matthew xvi.19

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:58 AM']I find it a bit curious that you are able to determine the intent of the fathers of the Council of Florence, even seemingly contrary to the text itself, but that you find it difficult to believe that one might be able to determine the unanimous consent of the Fathers
[right][snapback]911026[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is not I who have determined the intent of the Fathers of Florence, but the Magisterium. Her teaching today puts Florence in its proper light, and we cannot cite Florence in contradiction to the Church today.

[Amator Veritatis]

Certainly, anyone would agree that a proposition condemned, properly speaking, would be understood in light of the current teaching, for the previous teaching would be erroneous. This principle, however, could not apply to Tradition, which is incapable of being erroneous, for it is a part of the Deposit of Faith. In any event, what basis is there to assert that modern teachings have somehow condemned previous ones? Where has the Pope authoritatively forbade Catholics to hold the traditional views? If this has not occurred, then such positions cannot be called condemned. The distinction between a condemned view and a view traditionally and universally held which has not been condemned must necessarily be made.

[Amator Veritatis]

I have no intention of citing the Council of Florence against the Church, if such a thing were possible. I do intend, however, to cite an authoritative decree of a Council against the recommendations of modern theologians. N.B., Vatican II does not state that the Old Law is salvific or that its prescripts may be practised by anyone, so there is no need to believe that Florence is contrary to Vatican II in this regard.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 04:01 AM']In any event, what basis is there to assert that modern teachings have somehow condemned previous ones?
[right][snapback]911029[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What I have dealt with here is not "previous" teachings, but your stated perception of what you see as "previous teaching". I have not even dealt with the question of whether they were "teachings" at all.

Like I said, there is a lot of must go unsaid, because it's too complex a subject.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 04:04 AM']Vatican II does not state that the Old Law is salvific or that its prescripts may be practised by anyone, so there is no need to believe that Florence is contrary to Vatican II in this regard.
[right][snapback]911030[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Vatican II teaches that man may practice his faith according to his conscience. The Church's teaching since the Council has also emphasized that the practice of the Jewish faith is a positive good, although it will one day be perfected when the the path of Jews and Christians converge in the one Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Amator Veritatis]

As complex as the issue may seem to some, the fact remains that these teachings, as they were articulated both in Councils, decrees of Popes and teachings of the Fathers, represent the mind of the Church for nearly 2000 years. These positions have never been formally repudiated in an authoritative manner, nor have they been forbidden as viable options. Because this is the case, it would seem that the authority of the Fathers remains and that the faithful would not be permitted to doubt in these matters.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 04:10 AM']As complex as the issue may seem to some, the fact remains that these teachings, as they were articulated both in Councils, decrees of Popes and teachings of the Fathers, represent the mind of the Church for nearly 2000 years. These positions have never been formally repudiated in an authoritative manner, nor have they been forbidden as viable options. Because this is the case, it would seem that the authority of the Fathers remains and that the faithful would not be permitted to doubt in these matters.
[right][snapback]911033[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church condemns any proposition that the Jewish people are guilty of the death of Our Lord. It doesn't matter how many Saints or Fathers you quote. This proposition stands absolutely condemned by the Catholic Church:

[quote]What happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today...the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God.

--Second Vatican Council, Declaration "Nostra Aetate"[/quote]

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Amator Veritatis]

That statement, of all made in the entire Council, is probably the most difficult to reconcile. A priest in the diocese where I live gave this explanation to a citation from [i]Lumen Gentium[/i]. In reply to those who stated that it is possible to be saved in other religions than the Catholic Church, he said: "Sure, 'these too may be saved' if they become Catholic". Perhaps a similar equivocation might be made here, for it is clear from the teachings of Vatican I that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is an authoritative teaching. Perhaps, one might take the route of the priest I mentioned and state that such guilt cannot be given [i]solely[/i] to the Jews collectively and assert that this distinction is understood in the light of Tradition.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

Wow, how many times have I posted. Sorry for rambling. :

Anyways, what was this thread about? Oh yes, the Jews. Well, I guess I'll end with Pope Benedict, and let everyone come to their own conclusions.

[quote]Perhaps it is precisely because of this latest tragedy that a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people, the people of Israel, to whom belong "the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen" (Romans 9:4-5), and this not only in the past, but still today, "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). In the same way, let us pray that he may grant also to the children of Israel a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, who is their son, and the gift they have made to us. Since we are both awaiting the final redemption, let us pray that the paths we follow may converge.[/quote]

[Peccator]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 12:54 AM']In refutation of a point made by Sinner, we ought recognise that the reason for Our Lord's Crucifixion does not necessarily indicate its cause. Our Lord died to expiate the sins of the world that those might be saved who are baptised, hold the Catholic Faith and die having final perseverance free from mortal sin. Now, this fact does not indicate that all are the cause of the Crucifixion properly speaking. While all excluding the Blessed Virgin are, in some manner, guilty of the Death of Our Lord insofar as His Passion and Death were undergone in order that the sins of all might be forgiven, this does not mean that the entire human race actually participated in effecting Our Lord's Death. This principle can be illustrated by analogy. If a man incurs a debt as a result of some wrongdoing or misuse of funds committed by his wife, though he be guilty of the debt, he is not the cause of it. To illustrate a theologically analogous situation, the guilt of Original Sin committed by Adam is incurred by all men throughout the history of the world, excepting the Blessed Virgin. Though all men are guilty of Original Sin, no one other than Adam is the cause of it. By Adam's sin alone, and not by any sin of others afterwards, did Original Sin come into this world. In the same manner, while the human race is collectively guilty of the Death of Our Lord, not all men are the cause of it. The Crucifixion was effected by those who were involved in the unjust trial--if it can be called such--which Our Lord underwent and by the Jews corporately, as the teaching of the Holy Writ and the Fathers indicates. This corporate guilt is primarily a result of the Jews special honour of being, previously, the chosen people of God with whom He enacted the Old Law and to whom were revealed first the means of salvation through the preaching of Our Lord during his three years of public teaching. As the entire human race has justly incurred the sin of our first parents so too have the Jews inherited the ignominious deicide of their parents, and just as all are cleansed of Original Sin in Baptism so also are the Jews cleansed of their guilt along with Original Sin through so holy a Sacrament.
[right][snapback]910996[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Thank you, it makes sense...

I'm quite surprised the thread went on so long ...and very little critisism directed toward me

Anyway , Paul, the Church Fathers and numerous Saints have declared the Church the New Isreal, in other words everyone baptised becoming people of God not on basis of race but on faith.

If we as Catholics profess the false doctrine of Dispensationalism, we are no better than the Christian Identity groups who claim God to be a racist.

So far I've not seen the holy father speak on this 'ex cathedra', so I'll accept what the Church has maintained for the last 2000 years.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Peccator

[Amator Veritatis]

I believe that is the safest route. If something has not been defined or restricted such that the faithful are formally forbidden from holding a position, then it is safest to adhere to the lasting tradition of the Church and teachings of the holy Fathers. I hope there was no criticism on my part directed toward you. I simply wished to articulate the traditional position as I understand it.