“Evangelii Gaudium #247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.””
Wow, father, you disgust me with your errors.
Quoting documents is not the same as quoting dogma - Father Angel
It is if that document contains a de fide dogma.
And even if the quotes you have brought up are dogma, you have not at all proved that you have given these teachings the proper meaning which the Magisterium wishes us to have.
On the contrary I do know that its the proper teaching. How? Because the Council of Florence ended in 1449 and the Magisterium always upheld the documents I quoted as dogmatic. As for the meaning, its very hard to give a meaning contrary to what is stated and get away with it. Many have tried (even the Jews). But what I quoted doesn’t need much explanation. It is quite clear. And if I read an explanation on this quote from a N.O. prelate, even yourself, I am sure I would read something like this: “Well, understand that antisemitism and age long prejudices still existed back then and we must understand this document in its historical context. Thank God for Vatican II!"
Sorry, Vatican I stated that : “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
From Sts. Peter and Paul to the Council of Florence to Vatican I, the Church has always taught the same thing about the Jews and the Old Covenant. I hold fast to that “faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."
likewise, regarding Sacred Scripture, Vatican I stated: “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers." The Sacred Scriptures attest to what I am saying. All of the Church Fathers and a few dogmatic Councils, have said that the Old Covenant has been revoked and made null and void. Not even the Pope can do it. He is bound whether he likes it or not.
The New has superseded the Old for us
"for us" is wrong. For all. No man can practice the religion of the Old Covenant and expect Salvation. True, if he does and is invincibly ignorant he will be saved in spite of it not because of it.
Therefore, they remain loyal to the covenant which God spoke to them and ordered them to obey.
And Christ said that to accept Him is to obey the Covenant made with them. They did not. They remain loyal to a shadow!
But does that mean that it is now Catholic dogma that this rejection is to be applied to all Jews of all time, and that even the Jews of today must be held to the same sentence and accountability of the Jews in the time of Christ?
No. The Jews who personally rejected Christ are unimaginably more accountable for their deeds on that day. But the Jews today are accountable. They will not see God in Heaven if they die in their unfaith.
and how is it that a sincere Jewish believer, living today, is to be rejected by God and living in a revoked covenant because of what was done in the time of Christ?
How does individual sincerity play into this equation? Good on him or her for being sincere. But the Covenant is revoked regardless. I may sincerely believe that 2 + 2 = 5 but does that make it true?
And how does that square with saying that God can never withdraw His promises, which is Biblical teaching?
True, He can never withdraw His promises. I have never denied that. But that does not mean He cannot revoke something that was meant to be finite and limited. The Old Covenant was mean to give way to the New Testament, figures and shadows to the real and solid. And one of those promises is to convert all of Israel at the end of time! But He will convert them to the Church. He will bring them out of the darkness and unfaith. The really bad ones, those of the Synagogue of Satan (Freemasons and Communists), will be made to bow at the feet of our prelates and they will acknowledge that the Church is true (See Rev 3, Letter to Philadelphia).
And you have not at all proved your point that the Pope is guilty of formal heresy and is excommunicated. Even an ipso facto excommunication for heresy must be proven. The individual is summoned to a trial, questioned on the dogmas at hand, and asked if he or she denies what is divinely revealed.
I never said he was a formal heretic. Nor have I called for his trial. I know that the Pope is legally judged by no one, even one that has automatically fallen from the Chair. All we can do is KNOW that he is a heretic and an anti-Pope and avoid him at all costs. I only pray for one of his cardinals to be infused with the grace of Faith and to stand up to him in private like the personal confessor of John XXII did.
you quote words and then make his words appear to contradict the words you quote.
I don’t make his words appear contradictory. He does that himself!
1. However, I deny that God has “revoked” His Word to the nation of Israel
Then you are a heretic.
3. However, I deny that God is incapable of saving Jews or any people in an extraordinary way who are merely guilty of the veil of invincible ignorance.
Nor do I, as I have stated. But you seem to apply Invincible Ignorance very very liberally. Almost as if you think everybody is an Anonymous Christian. I reject your liberality because it stinks of ecumenism.
4. However, I deny that the Church has any power whatsoever to send people to hell or to predict the future of anyone’s salvation, as those sentences are secrets of Divine Providence. Therefore, the Church cannot dogmatically make predictions on any individual going to hell.
No one has made a prediction of anybody’s individual fate. STRAW-MAN. But the Church can dogmatically define the requirements of salvation and they can say that anybody who does not meet the requirements will depart to Hell. The Jews, who are not living in invincible ignorance, do not meet the requirements set forth by the Church. If they die and do not meet the dogmatic requirements, internal disposition aside, then I can have no hope for their salvation. I will only get to find out when I go before the general Judgment. It is the Church’s job to make known the requirements to every soul on earth, especially the Jews. Any command that prevents this, even if it is from the Pope himself, is a sinful command and cannot be followed.
5. I deny that this dogma is meant to be used by Catholics as a spiritual death sentence against people who are mentally, psychologically or emotionally incapable of grasping this Deposit of Faith. Such thinking would not correspond to the Catholic dogmas of divine justice or mercy, or the teaching about what constitutes true and actual mortal sin.
You forget to add spiritually incapable. The Jews, because of the curse attached to their false religion because of their crime of decide, are hindered even further. The veil is a real spiritual veil covering their hearts. If it wasn’t then why would the Church apply herself in prayer for so long and so arduously for its lifting? Just for kicks I suppose?
Therefore, with the Church, I confess that only those guilty of true mortal sin depart into hell
What about those who, being above the age of reason, are never Baptized? What about Original Sin? Are we not born enemies of God? They too depart to Hell. Invincible Ignorance aside, of course: “the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, OR ONLY IN ORIGINAL SIN, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments." - Decree of Union in the Council of Florence
And I feel the need to always remind you for what Bl. Pius IX condemned forever and ever with his Syllabus of Errors:
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc
If you loved me with Christian charity, you would not be disgusted with me personally, but with my failure to grasp your “truth.” Remember, love the sinner, but hate the sin. But we are going round and round, like a country square dance. So, let me place into syllogistic form the problem I have with your posts (not with you personally, whom I think to be a good person, as far as I can know this).
One of your lines of thought could be reduced to this syllogism:
a. The dogmas of Florence state that Jews, heretics, and schismatics will go to hell if they do not convert to Catholicism.
b. The Jews have not converted.
c. Therefore, the Jews are going to hell.
Another line of thought could be reduced to this syllogism:
a. If the dogma of Florence concerning the Jews is rejected by a pope, he becomes a heretic.
b. Pope Francis has rejected this dogma and has become a heretic.
c. Therefore, Francis, as a heretic, has become an anti-pope.
Now, here is my response:
In the first syllogism, the major premise is faulty. The reason is because when the dogma speaks of “the Jews, heretics, schismatics” it is speaking of those who are subjectively guilty of mortal sin for having knowingly rejected the truth after coming to understand it.
The reason this dogma is to be interpreted in the light of mortal sin is because Blessed Pius IX authoritatively taught that the mortal sin of hardness of heart does not apply to those who are invincibly ignorant. If the Church did not allow for invincible ignorance, it would send people to hell for ignorance, which goes against the dogma that you must die in mortal sin. Where there is ignorance, there can be no mortal sin.
With the denial of the validity of the major premise, the minor premise of the “Jews have not converted” no longer applies because those in invincible ignorance cannot be expected to convert.
Now, on to the second syllogism. This one is quite silly, actually, because it expects of the casual reader to assume that Pope Francis has not studied theology, and is unaware of the proper interpretation of the dogmas of the Council of Florence. But, okay, let’s play that game for the sake of argument, although I doubt we are so knowledgeable as to be able to teach Pope Francis a lesson in dogma.
Anyway, the major premise of the second syllogism assumes that Blessed Pius IX never allowed for invincible ignorance, in accord with the Catholic teaching that those who go to hell must die in knowledgeable mortal sin, not in ignorance of the truth of God.
The major premise of the second syllogism is invalid further on the grounds that it expects of a pope the interpretation of dogma which goes against the allowance for invincible ignorance on the part of the Jews. It further is an invalid major premise because the term “invincible ignorance” applies to an individual only, NOT to entire groups of people.
Neither you, Joshua, nor Pope Francis—in fact—no one can know that the term “invincible ignorance” does not apply to the Jews of today. The only way to know with absolute certitude if the Jews are invincibly ignorant is to know each Jew, in the entire world, and to be able to personally ascertain their understanding of Catholic truth.
Since Pope Francis is incapable of knowing whether all the Jews in the world today have knowingly rejected Christ as the truth, he cannot accuse them of hardness of heart. Therefore, he may assume that by obeying what they believe to be the only covenant God imposed on them, they can be saved, as can anyone who is invincibly ignorant, according to the teaching of Blessed Pius IX.
Thus falls the second syllogism by removing the possibility of the minor premise that Pope Francis has become a heretic, and therefore an anti-pope. God bless, Fr. Angel
I don’t really need to respond to this in length because you see to be missing what I am saying. I am not denying Invincible Ignorance. I only deny it liberal application by the Conciliar Church.
Prove it. Where is your proof? Or am I to take your word for it?
Absolutely, I do not deny this. But where there is ignorance, there can still be Original Sin. Ignorance of O.S. does not erase it and its effects. Everyone who dies with Original Sin on his soul, and who is not Invincibly Ignorant and has not lead a most immaculate life (an aspect you are constantly forgetting to mention) according to his or her means, will go to Hell (that means the Jews, Pagans, Heretics and Schismatics). That is, at least objectively, what we are to believe as Catholics. Its dogma.
It is most likely he has studied Conciliar Theology, a false theology that has a great deal of Catholicism in it but has been imbued with so much novelty that its twisted into something completely erroneous. That is why St. Pius X warned the seminaries to watch out for Modernist teachers. Simply read AA-1025, a tale (most likely true) about a Communist Infiltrator from Poland who was once a seminary professor. He talks about how he corrupted his students with Communism and with what would become Conciliar teachings! Even if it were a completely made up story, it reflects reality all too well. Perhaps Francis was a pupil of one of AA-1025’s students! I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
I believe he may be very aware of it and THAT fact is what is most dangerous. That is what makes him a heretic.
Certainly not me! But I am sure there are a few SSPX priests who could easily school the Pope on Catholic Theology. During the recent talks between Modernist Rome and the SSPX, one of the 4 priests who were presenting the truth to the Roman theologians remarked that they, the Romans, belonged in a mental institute for how far gone they are! Given Francis’ words and deeds, I have no doubt that he too belongs in one of them.
If they are invincibly ignorant and have lived a near immaculate life, despite ORIGINAL SIN on their souls, then they can be saved. Ignorance of no ignorance, the Old Covenant has been revoked for sure and that is what he is denying! He said its not revoked. It is. The Church has always taught that because IT IS. WHO CARES IF A JEW IS IGNORANT OF IT OR NOT? I don’t. I only care about the Pope who speaks heresy.