What to do with Judaism

[Amator Veritatis]

Era Might, as I stated, the teachings are a representation of the universal consent of the Fathers. No Church Father or Doctor has stated otherwise. Every Father who has spoken on the matter has asserted the positions of held by those Fathers quoted previously. Vatican I makes clear that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is an authoritative, perhaps infallible guide to true doctrine. By the way, the Council of Florence teaches that the Old Law has come to its completion. Our Lord has fulfilled the Old Law and established the New Law. The fact that a New Law has fulfilled the Old Law makes the Old Law void. In this manner, one can state that the Old Law, or at least its prescriptions, have been abolished. Certainly the juridical prescripts have been abolished, though they be not forbidden as the ceremonial prescripts are.

[Amator Veritatis]

I must respectfully state that I think that to be a misunderstanding of the decree of Florence. It states:

[The holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning.

This decree makes no distinction as to whether the prescripts of the Old Law are being put into practice. It states that they have come to an end with the Sacraments of the New Testament. The second half of that decree deals with the practice of the prescripts of the Old Law as such, but the first half makes clear that such prescripts have passed away.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:21 AM']As Saint Pius V ordered by his Papal Bull [i]Haebrorum gens[/i], all Jews not accepting the Catholic Faith ought be expelled. The ghetto system for Jews unwilling to convert also prevailed, as is well documented.
[right][snapback]911003[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It may be well documented, but it is also well condemned.

Papal documents rooted in historical and temporal matters do not establish Catholic doctrine. The Church rejects any kind of discrimination or animosity against the Jewish people:

[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]

The Second Vatican Council also developed the Church's teaching on religious liberty:

[quote]If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.

--Declaration "Dignitatis Humanae"[/quote]

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:30 AM']This decree makes no distinction as to whether the prescripts of the Old Law are being put into practice. It states that they have come to an end with the Sacraments of the New Testament. The second half of that decree deals with the practice of the prescripts of the Old Law as such, but the first half makes clear that such prescripts have passed away.
[right][snapback]911007[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The decree is not a treatment of Israel or Judaism, it is a treatment of the Mosaic law in relation to Christians in the New Covenant.

This subject is too complicated to get into everything here, but suffice it to say the the decree does NOT apply to Israel today, because it was not such a treatment. As I said, the first real treatment of Israel qua Israel came at the Second Vatican Council.

[Amator Veritatis]

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.

[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.