What to do with Judaism

[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.

[Peccator]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 14 2006, 04:25 PM']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.[/quote]Indeed. I find it surprising that a great deal of catholics do not understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility...as there seem to be a misunderstanding between Papal opinion and the Pope speak from the Chair of Peter as Universal Father of the Church (of which I only really know of it being done twice in history).

[quote] I hope there was no criticism on my part directed toward you. I simply wished to articulate the traditional position as I understand it.
[/quote]Not at all...I find this topic very interesting...and very controversial.

Any subject in our post modern society which might appear to criticise the Jewish religion can be considered anti-Semitic... Go figure

However if people look closely at the Traditional Catholic paradigm and at the doctrine of Dispensationalism its obvious which one is more racist I think we should address this topic in more depth...its obvious there is quite a deal of confusion regarding the topic.

Are you game?

Edited March 16, 2006 by Peccator