Rorate Caeli

For the record: full text of the Lecture on Nostra aetate by Card. Koch

The full text of the 2012 John Paul II Annual Lecture, promoted by the "John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue", has now been made available. The lecture this year was delivered in the Angelicum by Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

[PDF file]


[Previous posts: For the record: What did Koch say? & Card. Brandmüller: Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae non-binding. See also at the U.S. District website of the Society of St. Pius X, Not all of Vatican II is binding: Analyzing the comments of Cardinal Brandmülerand the comment by Catholic Culture's Jeff Myrus: "Now, in the case of the very brief Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), Cardinal Brandmuller’s assessment holds."]

42 comments:

New Catholic said...

This post's comments will be moderated even more strictly than usual.

Thank you.

JM said...

"Go, ye, therefore and dialogue with all nations" Did I get that right...

JM

Knight of Malta said...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Unlike Christ and His Apostles, methinks, most Bishops don't dust their sandals.

And, remember, +Lefebvre staked his life on missionary work, which the Church, after Vatican II, has lost.

JM said...

"The Christian church is naturally obligated to perceive
its evangelisation task in respect of the Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner
from that to the nations. In concrete terms this means that – in contrast to several
fundamentalist and evangelical movements – the Catholic Church neither conducts nor
supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews." Card. Koch

Just in case any of you were confused, apparently there is no need to seek conversion of the Jews. They might be offended at that. You see, the Church before 1965 didn't really know what it was doing, but we've finally got it figured out.

JM

allison said...

Koch and Brandmuller are saying opposite things. I presume this lengthy document, much of which I disagree with, is being released in response to Brandmuller's remark about "non-binding" areas of Vatican II. This point/counterpoint is only just beginning to occur.

rodrigo said...

I don't envy the person charged with moderation of comments on this post!

Judging by Cardinal Koch's telling, the history of recent Catholic-Jewish dialogue has involved a large number of concessions on one side, and very few on the other. Perhaps, if the dialogue is to continue to bear the excellent fruit we're told it has produced, consideration might be given in future to encouraging our elder brethren to revisit and revise those texts of the Talmud which have caused great distress to Christians in the past, and doubtless have sometimes played a role in fuelling anti-Christian attitudes. Peter Schäfer's 2007 work Jesus in the Talmud, from Princeton Univ. Press, is an excellent resource on this question.

As for Cardinal Koch's claim that Jews and Christians constitute "the one people of God": I would be very interested to learn of any Jewish theologians who subscribe to this view. In Christian terms, it seems a novelty which even Nostra Aetate didn't see fit to affirm: in NA, we read that

Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.

That is the only time the expression "people of God" is used.

Manfred said...

{Attempting to reassure his Jewish readers, Boteach reviews an extensive list of Christian beliefs that Jews cannot accept,ranging from original sin to the virgin birth,from repentance to salvation. As for Jesus Himself, Boteach states that "the belief that God can be human is the ultimate heresy". and "the most compelling reason for Jews inability to accept Jesus as the messiah is his failure to fulfill the messianic prophecies as given clearly by the Hebrew biblical prophets."} Hurd Baruch's review of KOSHER JESUS by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, New Oxford Review, May, 2012

Nostra Aetate was considered an "add-on" at the time of the Council.

Matt said...

Dialogue, yes, we understand that. It's so important in most interactions. On the other hand, how is the average Joe Faithful suppose take this sort of export? For 2000 years we have held Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He Himself said no one comes unto The Father but by Him. Suddenly now through a politically correct sense of social justice, a certain group now is officially unneeding of evangelization? Whether during adult catechesis or dialoguing one on one, this is thrown in your face, what then? There's no time or opportunity to do a work-around Nostra Aetate and so the opportunity has been cut off.

While this may be a pastoral policy of the Church, it's not doctrinal and, therefore, not binding.

Matt

Johannes de Silentio said...

What, pray tell, is the purpose of dialogue? Surely there is nothing wrong with trying to understand the perspective of another. The question comes down to why one would want to. The only permissible answer I can think of is to better equip oneself to lead the other party to the truth. So construed, ecumenism would really be evangelization in slow-motion, a tactically subtle way of leading another to the truth.

But this approach seems disingenuous, and, moreover, fails to eradicate all difficulties. Dialogue presupposes a moral equivalency between the parties. It suggest that the parties are fellow-travelers in a search for truth and that each can learn from one another. How that can be reconciled with a Church that professes that it and it alone has the totality of the truth escapes me.

Coming to the particular matter at hand, I think Cardinal Dulles had it right: "Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life. If we are convinced that baptism incorporates us into the body of Christ and that the Eucharist nourishes us with his flesh and blood, we will be eager to share these gifts as widely as possible."

Rick DeLano said...

Cardinal Koch is invited to initiate a canon law action against me, because I declare here and now that I do not believe him, and would resist him to his face should he attempt to impose his heretical teachings upon my sons.

Let me be more clear.

The Cardinal intends to impose upon me an heresy never known to the Church, and in direct contradiction to what has been believed always and everywhere.

I shall never acquiesce.

I hope this is clear.

I am not Spartacus said...

His lecture is teeming with heresies and errors and his weltanschauung is completely antithetical to the world view of Pope Saint Pius X and Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val whose praxis remain the model for Christian- Jewish relations.

The blackguard ideology that Rabbinical Judaism is not a rupture from the Judaism of the O.T. is a mephitic auto-destructive act as Rabbinical Judaism was formed to war against Holy Mother Church.

This lecture is so ghastly that it can not be identified as merely sad, it is shriekingly heretical and, at some point, it must be publicly repudiated by the authorities in the Holy City of Rome.

Bill said...

All these points were answered by Cdl Ratzinger's written DOMINUS JESUS in September, 2000.It was issued by John Paul II and created a firestorm. Cdl Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) has known for decades that the Church went off the rails at the Council. That is why he keeps stressing the HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY.

Michael Ortiz said...

I think the Cardinal is being too deferential to said parties, ie, while the Genocidal policies of the Nazis were horrific, they were at their core a defection from Christian teaching. And there were heroic bright lights, witnessing to conscience. Bonhoeffer, of course, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose movement, which had many Catholics in it, and was very much influenced by Thomistic teaching on the nature of law, civil, natural, and Divine.

He's forgetting the "Lion of Munster", as well, a huge oversight:

"Bishop von Galen made certain that mass copies of the encyclical were spread throughout his diocese in the teeth of frantic efforts by the Gestapo to supress the encyclical.

Von Galen continued to be the foremost domestic foe of the Third Reich. In the summer of 1941 he preached three public sermons against the Nazis that stunned Germany and made his name a household world around the globe. Designated the “Lion of Munster ” for his courage, his sermons would be printed by the Allies and dropped in leaflets all over Germany. Von Galen spent the rest of the war under virtual house arrest. Himmler thought of sending him to a concentration camp but did not do so, fearing that this might cause the start of civil war in Germany. The failure to move against von Galen might also have a simpler explanation. Even the meanest of mad dogs will be reluctant to attack someone who shows no fear, and in Bishop von Galen the murderers of the Third Reich confronted a man utterly without fear."
--http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/03/06/the-lion-of-munster/

Michael Ortiz said...

One additional point:

I have personal experience with an "inter-faith" dialog with the ADL, sponsored by the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. In 2009.

A "Reformed" Rabbi was part of it, as well as local scholars. The rabbi's outlook was basically the Rainbow Coalition--natural law was jettisoned for "tolerance". (On Original Sin, he said "What does Adam have to do with me?")Jewish historians lectured on how "official Church teaching" demanded in the early centuries of the Faith to "hate Jews". Thus, Vatican II was a "revolution" of Church doctrine. Meanwhile, a Catholic priest publicly mocked Benedict XVI, going so far as to suggest he was a latent anti-Semite.

When pressed on these issues, they invariably caved. Hence, for the ADL, the intellectual underpinnings are marshmellow fluff, at best.

I'm completely serious. These folks were light-weights.

If the Roman Catholic Church roared with the courage of Von Galen, they would head for the hills.

Matt said...

I am not Spartacus said, "It must be publicly repudiated by the authorities in the Holy City of Rome."

Bill said, "That is why [the Holy Father] keeps stressing the HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY."

Why is anyone expecting Rome to repudiate this? This is an official pastoral policy the Church has taken. This is also the hypocrisy of stressing "HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY" because of the on-going disconnects with the various facets of RUPTURE, and Rome's inability or unwillingness to address these disconnects and how to repair them in the HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY. One can understand the SSPX's frustration with Rome.

Matt

Dismas said...

I love this blog especially for it's comments. It fascinates me that a certain school of thought which seeks to invalidate God's first Covenant and promise made with his chosen people also denies the promises God made us in His renewed Covenant, in the second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ who visibly established His Church and Magisterium on earth and confirmed it in the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

I suppose it's no surprise that in order to justify this denial and invalidation, through personal theological opinion, of His original Covenant, one must first invalidate and deny, through personal theological opinion, the renewed Covenant; a council of His Church and it's Magisterium confirmed, led, and protected by the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit?

Indeed, the denial of Covenant and God's promises, through personal theological opinion, rooted in much of the thought in many comments found here, are endlessly fascinating.

Rick DeLano said...

Dismas: "a certain school of thought which seeks to invalidate God's first Covenant "

What school of thought might that be?

Oh.

Yes.

The "school of thought" of the Author of Scripture:

“For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.” (Rom 10-4)

“In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is
ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13)

“then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” (Heb. 10:9)

“and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the
blood of Abel.” (Heb 12:24)

“I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.” (Gal 2:21)

“But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted,
because only through Christ is it taken away.” (2Cor. 3:14)

Now.

Do you imagine, sir, that we shall deny God in order to place men?

We shall not deny God.

Brian said...

the Catholic Church neither conducts nor
supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews.
Card. Koch

For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (i.e., the Jews), wrought in me also among the Gentiles. Galatians 2:8

Dismas said...

Rick,

We each deny God everyday; Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, take your pick. As a matter of fact your response most reminds me of protestant sects that also rely on their own personal theological opinion and interpretation of Scripture.

Do you imagine, sir, that I shall deny God's Church in order to displace men?

Yes, the mystery of God is very great and I shall not deny His Church, the narrow gate of salvation.

Adam Michael said...

Ok, just to make sure I've understood this correctly:

The Jews and Christians comprise one People of God. This is possible because the first covenant, intimately tied to the Old Testament, can never be revoked. Being part of the one People of God and living under an eternally valid covenant, good Jews can be saved as much as good Christians. Thus, missionary activity among the Jews is as nonsensical as missionary activity among different members of the Church.

Nevertheless, the person of Jesus Christ is involved in the salvation of the Jews, even though Sacred Scripture and the Church don't reveal the details of this involvement and there is a need to reject and/or re-interpret previous assumptions on this issue.

Finally, good Catholics should avoid the beliefs and practices of fundamentalists and evangelicals who wrongly believe that Jews need to truly "convert" to Christ for salvation. These groups wrongly include the Jews in Christ's teaching on preaching the Gospel to all creatures. However, good Catholics should humbly share their love for and belief in Christ as a way to lead their Jewish brothers and sisters to gradually love and respect the person of Christ, without however encouraging or causing them to lose their own Faith.

I hope I've understood this correctly. This is apparently the faith of Rome and it should, at least, be understood clearly.

Rick DeLano said...

@Dismas:

Ahh.

So then the plain text of Scripture as unanimously understood by the Fathers is unpalatable to you?

You wish to impose some new gospel?

Never.

@Adam:

This is not the Faith of Rome, but the heretical constructions of Modernism.

R. John said...

If the Cardinal beleives that all Jews will go to hell unless they enter the Catholic Church (Council of Florence), then he is truly an antisemite for not seeking their converstion. If he doesn't believe it, he is a heretic.

I am not Spartacus said...

It fascinates me that a certain school of thought which seeks to invalidate God's first Covenant...

Dear Dismas. Maybe you will find this fascinating....

The Catechism of Trent

PART III: THE DECALOGUE

But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law,

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

9. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished;.... but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; "

Rick DeLano said...

Adam:

That is not the Faith of Rome, since it belongs neither to Scripture or Tradition.

It is a Cardinal's novelty, and it possesses not the slightest wisp of power to overturn Scripture, Tradition, and magisterium.

The Cardinal should be defrocked for this scandalous outrage against the Catholic Faith.

Francis said...

"The Most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and teaches that the Mosaic law cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. Everyone, therefore, who observes circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the Church declares not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation."(Council of Florence)

Brian said...

Let us pray also for the Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost also not exclude from thy mercy the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen

Dismas said...

What I find fascinating is the rejection of the fullness of truth promised us by Christ in establishing his Church on earth and sending the Holy Spirit to be with it and guide it till the end of time.

I haven't been left an orphan or a widower, and I'm truly sorrowful for those who think they have.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6W.HTM

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. the Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

JTLiuzza said...

If I reject Jesus and His Catholic Church and become an apostate, I would certainly be sent to hell upon my death. Unless, in that state of apostasy, I become a Jew, at which point I am saved. Do I have that right?

Since Jesus is the King and reigns in Heaven, once I get there as an apostate convert to Judaism, won't I have to finally concede that Jesus Christ is the Messiah since there He sits on His throne, and that I was wrong in rejecting Him? Or perhaps I will be sent to purgatory first in order that I be converted to Christianity before I can enter the Kingdom?

Either way, at some point I must convert and reject the faith that rejects Jesus Christ.

When Cardinal Koch speaks of Jews not having to convert to Jesus Christ, it seems to me that he himself is denying that Christ reigns.

Gravitas said...

Even In the Novus Ordo people pray for the conversion of Jews, and they don't think anyone needs to convert! Dismas is to the left of the typical nominal Catholic.

Johannes de Silentio said...

Dismas, for your edification, I would suggest a quick perusal of Cardinal Dulles' short reflections on dual covenant theology:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550.

One can believe Vatican II was the best thing since sliced bread and still be skeptical, as it appears Cardinal Dulles was, of the possibility that God's covenant with the Jewish people is perpetually valid.

rodrigo said...

Gravitas,

This is not a question of right and left, but right and wrong. Cardinal Koch is careful not to say that Jews do not need to convert in order to be saved, even if he does everything short of outright endorsement to suggest that such a position might be theologically acceptable.

To actually claim as much would be not "leftist", but heretical. Session 11 of the Council of Florence (a dogmatic council, not a "merely pastoral" one) is unambiguous.

Adam Michael said...

Rick,

Cardinal Koch's views are shared by many prelates in Rome and talks such as his enjoy the full approval of Pope Benedict XVI. Koch's talk may not reflect the pre-Conciliar faith of Rome, but in every practical sense, it is the current faith of the Eternal City.

If the "faith of Rome" is reduced to merely that which is true without absolute relation to the beliefs present in Rome (and approved by the Pope) at the present, the concept of union with Rome for the integrity of true Faith is placed in jeopardy.

Rick DeLano said...

Adam:

With respect, it appears that you suggest that allocutions of a Pope, interpreted by a Cardinal, impose upon me an obligation of religious assent (at least), even though the words of the Cardinal radically contradict Scripture and Tradition.

One maintains unity with Rome not by subscribing to the novelties of theologians, or even of prelates, but by giving the assent of Faith and religious submission to what the magisterium authentically teaches.

Indeed, it is the retailer of such novelties who has truly called into question unity in the Faith.

Allow me to decline to give the slightest assent to heresy, please, particularly since the heresies have never been promulgated in authentic acts of the magisterium, to which we are bound to render the assent of Faith, or of religious submission.

Those acts are heaven protected.

Even if the theologians interpreting them in such strange and frightening ways are not.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Dismas. Are you like Mark Shea in holding that there are currently two covenants?

Dismas said...

n/a Spartacus - I truly don't know what Mark Shea holds regarding the covenants.

I have already stated what I believe from the catechism of my Church:

"far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them"

The first covenant was not abolished, it was renewed and perfected. Furthermore, it's not my job to judge Jews or anyone else, that job belongs to God.

Lake Erie said...

Lake Erie said...

@Dismas

"I have already stated what I believe from the catechism of my Church"

A catechism is neither binding nor infallible unlike the decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent which are binding.

There are a number of questionable articles in the current CCC.

Jordanes551 said...

"A catechism is neither binding nor infallible unlike the decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent which are binding. There are a number of questionable articles in the current CCC."

Well-poisoning fallacy. Even if the Church's Catechism has a number of questionable articles, that does nothing to prove that what the Catechism teaches on this specific subject is erroneous.

Which is not to say that Dismas or Cardinal Koch are correctly interpreting or representing what the Catechism says.

Just a couple quick observations:

On the Old Covenant's fulfillment and abrogation, or abolition, St. Paul's words in Romans 10:4, "Christ is the end of the Law," are not pertinent, because "end" in that text means "goal" or destination or purpose or end-point. At best it implies that the Old Covenant has been finished and fulfilled, but of itself it is not irreconcilable with a Judaising heresy that maintains the continuing "validity" or normativity of the letters of the Mosaic Law.

As for the question of whether or not the Old Covenant has been "revoked," the Church is clear that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and finished, completed, perfected, and thereby succeeded by the New Covenant in the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord. One may say that the Old Covenant is "never revoked," as long as the meaning is that God did not break the covenant or abolish it on account of Israel's faithlessness (for God remains faithful even when we are unfaithful). But NOT in the sense of the continuing normative force or obligation of the Mosaic Law, as if the Jewish people were still obliged to obey the Old Torah, or as if they could be saved by obedience to the Law of Moses and consequently need not profess faith in the Messiah who is the "end" of the Law. No one can be saved or justified through the Law -- not even those who are children of Abraham according to the flesh.

Dismas said...

Lake Erie -

Veneration of relics is fine and even promoted by our Church. However, relics shouldn't prevent,
interfere, or become confused with the adoration due Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit alive and ever present in our Church. Jesus Christ gave us the promise of the Holy Spirit to infallibly protect and guide His Church, the Church of the Living God.

Our faith is not handed down from generation to generation by only certain relics, as something dead, but in it's complete and living fullness.

Adam Michael said...

Rick,

I would be the last to want you to acquiesce to heresy of any kind. However, at some point we need to clarify what "union with Rome" and the "pure of Faith of Rome" means. We make an appeal for the necessary return to such Roman unity in our discussions with Eastern Orthodox and sedevacantists, all the while taking a defensive stance toward many of the words and actions, which emanate from Rome. This demands clarification and explanation.

To begin, union with Rome cannot mean the faith professed in the city, itself, as prelates may profess (with papal approval) things that we consider heretical.

Thus, we must anchor the faith of Rome in the person of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. However, even he may approve of the aforementioned heresies. As a result, we must limit our necessary Roman union to the words of the Holy Father.

However, even this is not without blame, as some allocations of Pope John Paul II are so ambiguous as to lead to heretical conclusions at worse and severe nervousness among the orthodox, at best.

Finally, we are forced to limit the pure faith of the Eternal City to those words of the Holy Father that are examples of the extraordinary magisterium.

However, this form of the papal magisterium is rarely exercised and the proclaimation of dogmas is never truly necessary for the preservation of the true Faith among the faithful. Already-believed doctrines are the criteria of dogmas, and the faithful already profess these doctrines. Dogmas are for the benefit of the heretical.

We are then left with appealing to a Roman unity for the preservation of the Faith that is only absolutely necessary to be exercised at rare times by the Pope, and then only for the benefit of those who have forgotten and/or perverted the content of the Church's Tradition.

Non-Catholics could argue that the rest of the time we live as practical Eastern Orthodox and sedevacantists, professing allegiance to an orthodox Rome of yesteryear, while taking a defensive and often aggressive stance toward modern Rome. The only difference is that we continue to pay lip-service to the present Pope and the historic importance of Rome in the living of a traditional Catholic life.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Dismas. Your tenuous position is not of your own doing for how is a Catholic to decide which is true when a Catechism following one Ecumenical Council teaches the covenant is abrogated (that is, abolished) while the new Catechism teaches that moral part of the abrogated old covenant, obviously, remains, despite the truth the old covenant was abrogated?

I am not looking at the catechism right now but if it failed to teach the old covenant was abrogated/abolished/extinguished, etc, that is a failure to teach and such a failure results in confusion for many (and leaves them potential victims of the Sheas and Hahns of the world) for I imagine that since you have seen quotes from Mystici Corporis Christi and the Council of Florence etc you can see that while the Old Covenant was revoked/abrogated/abolished there are the moral parts of it that remain for morality is universal and objective not personal and subjective.

Our Holy Father has also, publicly, in one of his books, written that the old covenant was revoked.

Frankly, the Catechism has more than one questionable entry that tends to leave the sheep open to manipulation by wolves.

The fact is that unless one becomes a Catholic Traditionalist Autodidact, one can be easily mislead because the Bishops have stopped teaching - a fact they admitted and apologised for in one of the recent USCCB meetings of the past decade.

Adam Michael said...

"The fact is that unless one becomes a Catholic Traditionalist Autodidact, one can be easily mislead because the Bishops have stopped teaching - a fact they admitted and apologised for in one of the recent USCCB meetings of the past decade."

I thought union with the Pope and the bishops in communion with him were the guarantee of orthodoxy. Is not this a key component of being "in union with Rome"?

I disagree that the bishops have stopped teaching. In some key areas, they are teaching a different Faith (cf. Cardinal Koch, who teaches in union with Pope Benedict XVI, regarding the disavowal of missionary activity among the Jews and the apparent conclusion that at the present Jews can be saved without explicit confession of Christ).

Dismas said...

n/a Spartacus -

The fact is that unless one becomes a Roman Catholic and assents to the promise made by Jesus Christ of the Holy Spirit for His Church, one can become easily mislead.

With that in mind, I'm afraid I've lost my nerve in comming here. I no longer choose to participate in this conversation. The danger of sin against the Holy Spirit occurs to me, of which, I neither want to be a further party to or witness thereof.