POPE AND CARDINAL ANGELO AMATO AT LOGGERHEADS?

If the pope has created a new teaching on the Jews to avoid the charge of anti Semitism then, is there the risk, of Vatican Council II being considered ‘hate’,’ racist’ and anti Semitic?

Yes. And the problem for the pope is Cardinal Angelo Amato.

He has repeatedly been calling in public for mission and evangelisation based on Vatican Council II. He has actually cited passages from Vatican Council II which inspire him (Lumen Gentium 14, Ad Gentes 7).

This was too much for whoever was monitoring him when he was the Secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.

Efforts failed to get him to speak only of Jesus being the only Saviour and to avoid mentioning the necessity of the Church for salvation.

He was removed from his post and replaced by a professor of the Jesuit Gregorian University, Rome, someone who would not say that the Church is necessary for all people to enter through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell (Ad Gentes 7). Jews included.

Cardinal  Angelo Amato,the present  Prefect for the Congregation for the Cause of the Saints has said inter religious dialogue should not exclude proclamation. He was in accord with Pope Pius XII whose cause for beatification he has pushed ahead. The Servant of God approved Catholic Mission in its purity of doctrine- calling for a proclamation based on the dogma which said all non-Catholics need to explicitly enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven

Cardinal Amato was speaking at a conference on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue organised in Emilia Romagna, Italy according to Avvenire (Amato: il dialogo non exclude l'nnuncio ' Stefano Andrini da Bologna Dec3.2009, Avvenire p.16 Catholica)

The former Archbishop  Secretary, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican in an interview in the Italian daily Avvenire has emphasised the importance of Catholic Mission. He was interviewed at the Salesian University, Rome by Gianni Cardinale (Amato: non ce Chiesa senza missione, March 8, 2008, Saturday p. 21, Catholica, Avvenire).

Archbishop Angelo Amato, CDF, Sec., Vatican was saying that Judaism without the Jewish Savior is not a path to salvation and all Jews in general, need the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. He quoted the text from the Council Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14) which says:

˜All must be incorporated into Him by baptism, and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself explicit terms affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism (cf.Mk.16:16; Jn.3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.

As Prefect he promised his many supporters and fans that he would be back to talk about Catholic Mission.

However there seems to have been no new affirmation of mission according to Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14.

Now with the new policy on the Jews revealed to Peter Seewald, it would seem, necessary, that Angelo Amato, a Salesian priest, remain silent.

He was made a cardinal recently along with Cardinal Raymond Burke. Will Angelo Amato remain faithful to Pope Benedict’s new teaching on Jews not needing to convert in the present times?

At Cardinal Amato’s next meeting with Papaboys in Rome, will he inspire those young people to go out in mission?
What more can he be offered to avoid a confrontation on doctrine?               

This Salesian priest knows that Don Bosco like Vatican Council II taught the rigorist interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation.

The new teaching on the Jews not needing to convert in the present times is a contradiction of the cardinals earlier teachings. It is also a contradiction of the Bible.

Judaism



I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.


In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one’s way of being and respective mission[. . .]


A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done. - Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times”, Ignatius Press, 2010. (From the website La Chiesa)(Emphasis added)

CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS INDICATE POPE PIUS XII WAS 'FALLIBLE' : VATICAN'S NEW POLICY ON JEWS AGREES WITH THEM

Apologist Mark Shea in a feature on InsideCatholic.com, Can Non Catholics be saved? (24.10.2009) states that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy.

He writes,' Rev. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for insisting that only people in visible communion with the Catholic Church could be saved.’ This is the message of Mark Shea and Patrick Madrid. Also the late Fr. William Most on the Eternal Word Television Network (ETWN).

 Fr. Leonard Feeney taught that defacto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church through Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and there were no exceptions.

This was the dogma of the Council of Florence and the Bull Sanctum of Pope Boniface. This was the ex cathedra dogma of Pope Innocent III, Lateran Council IV (AD 1215), Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. According to Ludwig Ott, this teaching has been solemnly defined by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and affirmed by the Union Council of Florence, by Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XII and many other popes

So Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma. He said that de facto everyone needs to enter Catholic Church, with no exception to the baptism of water, to avoid Hell and go to Heaven. If they did not enter the Church he would say, and so did the dogma, they would be oriented to Hell. So how could he be in heresy, as alleged, for affirming an ex cathedra dogma which Pope Pius XII called ‘infallible’.

So if Fr. Leonard Feeney was allegedly excommunicated for heresy then Pope Pius XII who approved of the excommunication as it is reported, would be in heresy and error. It would mean he was fallible on this faith-issue.

Yet the apologists, and the late Fr. William G.Most on the EWTN website, state Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy and there has been no denial from the office of Cardinal Ratzinger or the Vatican.

Is this statement based on a new Revelation in the Catholic Church?

It could not be Vatican Council II since Ad Gentes 7, is in agreement with the dogma and Fr. Leonard Feeney.

If Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy then it must have been a new interpretation of the dogma.

But how can a dogma change?

When did this change happen?

I think the change happened when the Vatican and Boston’s secular newspapers were told that the dogma is now being re-interpreted. It is being changed they were told.

The Vatican was informed in the 1940’s that de jure (in principle) Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center do not believe that there could be exceptions to Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water, for going to Heaven.

The Vatican (Holy Office/CDF) was told that some professors at Boston College and the St. Benedict Center of Fr. Leonard Feeney, in principle do not teach that the baptism of desire and implicit salvation exists.

Then-the secular newspapers were told, or allowed to think, that Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center were teaching that de facto, everyone with no exception, needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell-so they were excommunicated.

The Archbishop of Boston did not  realease,for three years, the Letter of the Holy Office (1949) to the media which affirmed ‘the dogma’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Letter referred to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the ‘infallible’ teaching. This point was in favor of St. Benedict Center which had been placed under interdict by the Archbishop of Boston. Imagine having to tell the Press that the Letter supported Fr.Leonard Feeney!

Neither did the cardinal-archbishop of Boston issue a clarification when the newspapers reported that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the dogma. The newspapers instead said no more does every one have to convert to avoid Hell.

This  was when ‘the dogma changed’.

So when apologist Patrick Madrid was asked a call-in question on EWTN radio, if non-Catholic’s need to convert to go to Heaven-he gave the de jure answer from the Catechism and Vatican Council II.

It was correct (de jure) but false - de facto.

Non Catholics with the baptism of desire and implicit faith can be saved( we accept in principle) but de facto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church with no exception, as the thrice defined dogma taught.

So the confusion still continues on a wide scale among Catholics.

If one says de facto any non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience it is heresy. It is rejecting an ex-cathedra teaching like the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. It would also mean rejecting the Church teaching on the infallibility of the pope which is a dogma defined in the First Vatican Council of 1870. It would also mean rejecting the teaching that a dogma is irrevocable and unchanging.

It would also be contradicting the saints like Maximillian Kolbe and Francis Xavier. If Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy then it must have been a new interpretation of the dogma. Imagine St. Francis Xavier before the natives in Old Goa, saying to them, “Many of you must convert to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. But not all of you. Those of you who have a good conscience or are in invincible ignorance can be saved. So stay where you are!"

Unthinkable?! But this is what many good Catholics are saying, including apologists.

Now the Vatican supports them with its new official teaching on the Jews. Inspite of the Gospel of John saying that Jews need to convert to avoid Hell the Vatican states they do not . Also new theologies are being provided to support this heresy.

Judaism

I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one’s way of being and respective mission[. . .]

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done. - Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times”, Ignatius Press, 2010. (From the website La Chiesa)(Emphasis added)

Cardinal Tarcisco Bertone, Vatican, Secretary of State has also denied the ex-cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In a front page article in the L’Osservatore Romano (April 4, 2008) a statement was issued to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to prevent war and to resume dialogue. The report said that Jews in the present times do not have to convert.

The pope and the Vatican Curia are contradicting Pope Pius XII, whom the pope wants to beatify, and who called the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus an 'infallible' teaching. It also means that the three popes who infallibly taught extra ecclesiam nulla salus are wrong according to the Vatican. This is the rejection of another dogma of the Church, the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.It is a contradiction of most of the Gospel of St.John  which says Jews need to convert to be saved from Hell.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH 's ' Responses’ IN CONFUSION WITH NEW TEACHING BY THE POPE

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican endorsed the ‘strict interpretation’, the literal and only interpretation, of outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

During the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI the CDF issued Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church which affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was a repetition of Pope John Paul II’s teaching in Dominus Iesus and the Notification on the book by Fr. Jacques Dupuis S.J. It was in accord with Pope Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi and Vatican Council II‘s Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.Pope Pius XII called it our ‘infallible’ teaching. (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

In Responses to Some questions regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church the CDF states:

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […].

This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.-Responses to Some Questions Regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.(June 29, 2007)

So Responses to Some Questions Regarding certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church does not explain are understanding of Church (ecclesiology) as a break from Tradition and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It repeats the message of Vatican Council II that the Church is a necessity for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14). We do not separate Jesus from the Church, even though elements of salvation can be present outside the visible boundaries of the church. De facto everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church; it is a necessity for salvation .All non-Catholics need to enter through the ordinary way of salvation which is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De facto everyone needs to enter the Church.

De jure (conceptually, in theory, intellectually, in theology) we could debate or discuss exceptions to the need of salvation, those without the baptism of water. However these are exceptions known only to God. They are unknown to us. They are unknown to us since only Jesus can judge. He will decide.

Responses states

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”

In ‘certain circumstances’ as Pope Pius XII states (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) those with implicit faith, those who are not Catholics ,can be saved (without Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water).So we cannot interpret ‘It follows that these separated churches and Communities….’ as referring to the ordinary way of salvation. Since only in 'certain circumstances’; exceptionally and known to God only can members of separated Churches and communities be saved without Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church. The ordinary way of salvation is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. For example the Catechism states that the Catholic Church knows of no way to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith). So this is the ordinary way. Yet CCC 1257 also says salvation is not limited to the Sacraments. So here we have the dejure, extraordinary,exceptional means of salvation. In a way it is irrelevant to us since it will be judged only by Jesus.

If ‘“It follows that these separated churches and Communities…’ was a reference to the ordinary way of salvation then it would contradict Vatican Council II. Since Ad Gentes 7, states “all people” need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All.

If de facto we know specifically, personally, that someone in ‘these separated churches and Communities’ can be saved, then it would contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So dejure, conceptually we know “It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness...'-is possible. De jure (conceptually, in theory, intellectually, in theology) we could debate or discuss this possibility.

De facto it is clear that there are no exceptions to ' Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […].’

De facto (in evangelising, in personal contact with non-Catholics) there is no one who specifically has the baptism of desire, who I know is in invincible ignorance or who I can judge has good conscience.

However under pressure from the Zionists (ADL, Chief Rabbinate of Israel etc) the pope has stated in public that he revised the Good Friday Prayer ‘in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all.’ The pope says ‘that there do not exist two ways of salvation’The pope continues ‘and that therefore Christ is also the saviour of the Jews, and not only of the pagans.

Judaism

I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one’s way of being and respective mission[. . .]

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done. - Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times”, Ignatius Press, 2010. (From the website La Chiesa)(Emphasis added)

Cardinal Tarcisco Bertone, Vatican, Secretary of State has also denied the ex-cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In a front page article in the L’Osservatore Romano (April 4, 2008) a statement was issued to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to prevent war and to resume dialogue. The report said that Jews in the present times do not have to convert.

At that time the Italian daily Il Messaggerro reported that there was a threat of war with Israel. So when Pope Benedict issued the Revised Prayer he probably saved his life and those of many others in the Vatican. He also then went to Israel as the guest of the Israeli government.His visit was welcomed with advertisements placed in Israel by the pro abortion, pro homosexuality, pro euthanasia, Jewish Anti Defamation League.

'A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy' the pope tells Seawald.

On Sept.22, 2009 Cardinal Bagnasco President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Italy (CEI) issued a directive before two liberal Rabbis in his office, stating that the Revised Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for their conversion and that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. This is a negation of the Bible and a rejection of the ex cathedra infallible dogma outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). The dogma is supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and has been called an ‘infallible’ teaching by Pope Pius XII (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

It is of course a negation of the CDF document Responses.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican has issued a clarification on Pope Benedict’s comment in the book by Peter Seewald. The CDF has said that the Church stance on condoms has not changed.

The CDF has not issued a clarification on Pope Benedict’s controversial comments on the Jews. The pope was contradicting three infallible definitions by three popes and Councils. He was contradicting Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II magisterial documents especially that of Pope John Paul II. He was directly contradicting the Bible.

Here is the ex cathedra dogma taught by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) whose Prefect is Cardinal William Levada and affirmed in Responses.

• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) Ex Cathedra

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.) Ex Cathedra

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex Cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS).

There are Catholic communities which are recognized by the Catholic Church who hold the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus  according to Responses. They too must be in confusion with the new policy of the Vatican. 

If the Catholic Church can change its teaching on the Jews needing to convert in the present times to avoid Hell and if it can reject an ex cathedra dogma which Pope Pius XII called 'infallible' then it could also change its teachings on abortion and homosexuality in the near future.