Cardinal Cupich: ‘Evangelization’ doesn’t mean converting Jews to Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gracepoole

Guest
He said the “renewal” of the Church can be done by “returning to roots of traditions” but also condemned the traditional Catholic approach of converting people of other religions to Catholicism.

Discussing the “sin” of “proselytism,” Cupich said:
Code: 
Sadly, mission efforts by Catholics and some other Christian communities have not always avoided these sins. There have been times when human and financial support have been tied to conversion. Other times, conversion was required through the force of state power or ecclesial power. Still others, and even in our day, deception is found in the presentation of Christianity to others. Often this means presenting only the positive elements of one’s religion in contrast to the weaknesses of the other. Again, we have to admit, frankly, that Catholics have not been free from such attitudes and actions.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II acknowledged the errors born of missionary zeal and a false sense of service to the truth. This is what he said: ‘Let us ask pardon for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distressful and hostile attitude sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions. We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church.’ Tonight, if any of you have experienced anything of this nature from Catholics in your own life, I too ask your forgiveness.
…

Cupich’s contention that “no Catholic is free to reject the teaching of Nostra Aetate” conflicts with what Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Archbishop Guido Pozzo says about the document.

Pozzo, who is overseeing the full reunion of the canonically irregular group the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) with Rome, said:
Code: 
Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic. This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view — contrary to the Catholic Faith — that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Faith itself in its declaration, Dominus Iesus. Therefore, any interpretation of Nostra Aetate which goes into this [erroneous] direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected.
Because of this, according to Pozzo, the SSPX may not have to accept all of Vatican II as a condition of being fully reunited with Rome.

Cupich’s assertion that Nostra Aetate is “not optional” raises the question: does that mean that every previous, clear Church and/or papal statement on Catholicism being the fullness of the truth is optional?
Click to expand...

Putting aside that this piece comes from Lifesite News… Thoughts here?
 
Last edited:
Christ came for everyone and a lot of the early converts were Jews…
 
May St Paul the Apostle pray for us.
May St Thomas the Apostle pray for us.
May St Patrick pray for us.
May St Francis Xavier pray for us.

May God have mercy on our souls.

Now, let us remember that what is said strictly appears to be saying to use force or be not wholly truthful in conversion. I hope that this is all this is.
 
Last edited:
This article is very confusing and another example of how LifeSiteNews doesn’t do a good job covering Church matters.

Unless I missed something, I don’t see anything specifically about not evangelizing Jews; I only see talk about proselytism.

HOWEVER, I believe that most Catholics do not know the difference between proselytism and evangelization.

We evangelize everyone by sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. However (in today’s language), proselytism is attempts to convert WITHOUT evangelizing.

Needless to say, this topic is very confusing to Catholics today.
 
I completely agree – I think many Catholics see these terms as synonymous or don’t know what one or both of them mean. I guess that’s why I find the topic interesting.
 
I don’t quite understand this recent aversion to the conversion of the Jews. I thought it was doctrine that one of the conditions of the second coming of our Lord was the conversion of all Jews to the Catholic Church? Is this not true anymore?
 
That’s what I’ve learned too.

I don’t know if this Cardinal’s words are a real statement, but it’s best to be ignored either way.
 
Last edited:
I’m spit balling here to a certain extent but supersessionism has had some historically disastrous consequences. I suppose that might be part of the reason for a change in perspective.
 
There is no “Jew or Gentile”, male or female, etc…

It’s not supercessionism. It’s completion. If anything, Jews would enrich the church and build up the whole body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
straykat said:
There is no “Jew or Gentile”, male or female, etc…

It’s not supercessionism. It’s completion. If anything, Jews would enrich the church.
Click to expand...
From the historical perspective, supersessionism was certainly embraced at points. Again, often with disastrous consequences. Perhaps this drives fear that converting Jews to Catholicism will result in the same consequences.
 
I’m not sure of all the history. I think new studies show that the Inquisition was not the bogeyman it was made out to be, and they had less prisoners than the propaganda taught.

I also love St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila… both of Jewish blood, and some of that period’s most enlightening saints.
 
Perspective has quite a different meaning than doctrine or teaching.
 
I’m not trying to play dumb. I’m pretty ignorant of any missionary efforts that went sour in recent history.
 
Last edited:
I’m not speaking of missionary efforts directly. There’s a pretty hefty amount of research on the Holocaust and the supersessionist antisemitism that preceded it.
 
I suppose that yes, it is wrong to prostelytize if you mean mere recruitment rather than speaking and advocating for the truth. A priest would be wrong, for instance, to accept someone to the catechumenate who merely wanted to “switch teams” rather than having a real belief that their salvation was to be found in the truth taught by the Church and her sacraments.

The sins of the past in this regard were sacrilegious, after all. It is sacrilegious to force or pressure someone to be baptized when they are not actually believers. That doesn’t mean there was a sin committed every time someone converted to Catholicism from some other faith. That is a cause for rejoicing, and the Pope himself rejoices at true converts to the faith.
 
Last edited:
I don’t relate the two at all. The Nazis were into weird Arian based mysticism and nationalism. Specifically from the Thule society.


And Goebbels himself had a quote to some effect of saying how they’d eventually deal with the “church problem”. I can’t find it atm.
 
What’s missing here is acknowledgement of the fact that the Nazis made use of centuries of antisemitic attitudes. What Hitler, Goebbels, Heydrich, etc. believed isn’t in question. It’s what the “ordinary” folks believed and permitted them to allow genocide to take place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top