jump to navigation

The pre- and post-VII approaches to Judaism cannot be reconciled December 15, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Bible, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

Just a bit of evidence from the Haydock Study Bible from the Book of Zacharias, chapter XIII that the post-conciliar modernist/indifferentist reproachement with Jews is impossible to reconcile with the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  There was disturbing news last week when Cardinal Kurt Koch, a severe modernist, announced that the Church was formally rejecting any missionary outreach to Jews, because they still have a valid covenant something something blah blah even though Christ Himself said that without faith in Him as the Messiah of all humanity one could not be saved (yes yes, this is not the post to discuss the finer points of that Doctrine).  The prophecies from Zacharias point directly at Jesus Christ, and indicate that false prophets and adherents to false religions shall be destroyed:

And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein.

And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art my people: and they shall say: The Lord is my God.

What I found even more interesting, however, was the commentary provided by Fr. George Leo Haydock on this important bit of Scripture:

The greatest part of mankind will be lost. (Haydock) — The few Jews who embrace the faith will be absorbed in the Gentile converts, and suffered to live, though proved by persecutions, while the rest shall be exterminated. Both shall lose their name, and be styled Christians.

Those who adhere to Judaism, or to paganism, cannot be saved. This is the privilege only of Christian Catholics, who live piously, and are selected by God’s grace.

Now certainly, this is no dogmatic statement.  It’s the opinion of several Catholic Scripture scholars quoted.  But it reveals the enormous dichotomy in practical belief that separates the pre- and post-conciliar Church.  The Haydock commentary was compiled between roughly 1780 and 1810.  The view presented in this commentary on Zachariais xiii:8 was solid, middle of the road orthodoxy at that time.

And this view continued to be solid, unquestioned orthodoxy until the latter half of the 20th century, specifically, until the “fruit” of Vatican II.  Now we have heads of major Vatican dicasteries proclaiming that not only can Jews be saved even given their explicit rejection of Jesus Christ (and for many modern day Jews, this rejection is a fundamental part of their identity), but they are in such an assured position for salvation that the Church should absolutely refuse  to permit any efforts to convert Jews to faith in Jesus Christ!  To justify this belief, these modern-day leaders point to the disastrous declaration Nostra Aetate, and not without some justification, for that declaration does seem to set Jews apart in their own special, continuing covenant with God, no matter how much this declaration is at odds with Scripture and Tradition.

It’s just another small example of the numerous aspects of Vatican II that simply cannot be reconciled with the constant belief and practice of the Faith, even to the level of contradicting solemnly defined Dogma.  I’m sorry, but these two approaches cannot, in any sane sense, be reconciled and explained away. There is no way to reconcile “Jews cannot not, in a general, objective sense, be saved” with Cardinal Koch’s command forbidding efforts to convert Jews because “Nostra Aetate….professes…..[that] a replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations.”

These things simply cannot coexist.  They cannot be reconciled.  This is a radical repudiation of the constant belief and practice of the Church.  It is, an awful novelty and an even larger error, and it is grounded in an indifferentism that is concerned far more with not offending Jewish wealth and temporal power than it is seeing souls saved for all eternity.  But it’s also part and parcel of the kind of worldly, materialist, indifferentist mentality that has dominated in the Church these past several decades.

Comments

1. Observer - December 15, 2015

‘Historian’ Michael in his blog says much the same, but he contends, rather stridently, the novelty didn’t start at Vatican II but goes back to renaissance papacy. He seems to have a bit of an obsession with that period of Church history.

2. Observer - December 15, 2015

Typo, referring to Michael Hoffman.

3. Tim - December 15, 2015
4. Woody - December 15, 2015

Can both be right? How simple a question is that. And, yet, in order not to offend a “friend” here on earth, one would deny Christ?! Perhaps it would be easier if those who defend salvation through Judaism go join it. They could show us the way. But then again, our Lord has already done so: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Tantumblogo - December 15, 2015

That’s my favorite Bible verse! John xiv:6!

5. Michael Lofton - December 16, 2015

NA doesn’t teach “replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations”. I don’t even see how anything in it can be twisted to say as much.

6. Guest - December 16, 2015

With a lot of things that Vatican II wrought we are led to ponder if it is the same Church. If Vatican II is backed by infallibility then either the men who are pushing it are not Catholic or the Catholic Church is not the one true Church. Simply because we can smash it into an Orthodox interpretation is irrelevant. The true interpration of Vatican II is the one implemented by the hierarchy.

7. Daniel Brooks - December 17, 2015

Interesting (as always) interview with Dr. E. Michael Jones where he weighs in on the issue.

E Michael Jones> “So what is the consequence then, of the Jew not getting baptized?”

Peter Helland: “Jesus said that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, whoever does not believe will be damned”

EMJ> “So you’re condemning these people to Hell”

Peter Helland> “In the name of false love”

EMJ> “In the name of charity the Catholic Church is condemning Jews to Hell. Well that’s a new idea of charity.”

EMJ> “So the Church is saying, well the Jews can go to Hell!”

Precisely.

8. richardmalcolm1564 - December 20, 2015

“And this view continued to be solid, unquestioned orthodoxy until the latter half of the 20th century, specifically, until the “fruit” of Vatican II.”

Well, in a major way, it’s a fruit of the Holocaust, without which Nostra Aetate is much harder to conceive of. It put Catholics on the defensive – not fairly, but on the defensive just the same.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: