I don't understand how some of my trad. latin mass going friends are anti-semitic!

[latinmasslover]

And so we return to the consistent traditionalist claim – the doctrines you like are dogma, the ones you do not are opinions.

I have no idea what you are driving at. Christ asked His Father to forgive those that crucified Him.

This is laughably disingenuous. The focus of much of Paul’s writings and much of his ministry was reconciling the Gentile and Jewish sides of the faith. The nature of Judaism, its relationship to Greek Christians, and the relationship of Judaism to Christianity is the focus of Galatians and a major theme of Romans. It was not an “itty-bitty” matter. The fact that many, perhaps most, of Paul’s and the other Apostles friends and families were cursed by God would not have been some itty-bitty trivia, easily passed over.

The source? I gave it, Matthew 16:19. The Church teaches that Sacraments for which Christ did not proscribe a particular matter or form, the matter and form is left to the Church. The Church teaches that there is no sin so great that it cannot be forgiven. But this is a bit disingenuous of me, because the Church clearly teaches that there is not and never was a curse.

The Scriptures say no such thing. The passages I cited to you are clear:

Deut 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death.

Ezekiel 18:1-4 – Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, what is the meaning of this proverb that you recite in the land of Israel: “Fathers have eaten green grapes, thus their children’s teeth are on edge”? As I live, says the Lord GOD: I swear that there shall no longer be anyone among you who will repeat this proverb in Israel. For all lives are mine; the life of the father is like the life of the son, both are mine; only the one who sins shall die.

No, I said that I take (as well as other trads) the traditional teaching, backed by popes, councils, and Saints (as well as Jesus Christ) OVER the secular defenition of love and truth.

My point with the forgiveness quote is more of a question: Since Jesus prayed that, how can anyone go to Hell?

St. Paul wasn’t present at the trial of Jesus, so it’s very possible that he was unaware of what was said. My point earlier, so what if they’re cursed? That does not mean that we do not treat them with charity. I myself never gave it much thought until this thread. I simply stated that this was the teaching until recently. St. Paul’s mission was to preach the Gospel, and that’s what he did. Everyone is called to evangelize differently. Some are called to be strict and drive the fear of the Lord into the souls of people, and some are not. Compare the Saints and their writings. St. Paul didn’t talk about the curse. So what? That doesn’t prove anything. He’s not God either.

There is no sin that cannot be forgiven, I totally agree (and am very grateful for!). As to the curse, or lack thereof, being a "clear teaching

I’m pretty sure I’m not mistaken about what the Scriptures say regarding sins being passed on, though I read this a long time ago and I do not recall the translation that I read it from. I will look for it and clarify one way or the other. But that still leaves the question of original sin: why is the sin of Adam passed on if we’re not punished for another’s sin?

There is nothing clear about the Church’s teaching on this matter. This non-doctrinal view changed. Is this nothing more than another cave in on behalf of the Church? I believe so. Correct if I’m wrong ( ) but it was my understanding that the Church is (now) saying that there was no curse, ever, not that the curse is over. Two very different statements, the first being a contradiction of many years of belief, the second being an actual possibility.

 

[GerardP]

the traditonal latin mass and church was always anti semitic. one of the man made prayers at good friday speaks of “praying for the perfidious Jews”… Pope innocent was first to make Jews wear the Star of David, other “traditions” in latin church in europe taught catholics to attack Jews during the High Holy Days, smack and spit on them and to drive them out of market areas.
the anti semitism of this latin rite is deep and anyone can learn more about its haterd

False. I’m curious about what perverted angle you are trying to sell your intellectually vacant wares from.

We’ve got a nice broad brush attack against the Catholic Church.

Flat out lies about history.

The “man made” prayers is another childish slur and a hint at your prejudices ( and general intelligence) .

I’m trying to figure out if you’re a Protestant of the Pastor Hagee type of idiocy or some other lunatic splinter promoting some doctrine of devils.

 

[GerardP]

I’ll ask again.

The funny part of this is, if we reversed the words “Catholic” and “Jews” and replaced “Anti-Semitic” with “Anti-Catholic” the statement would be considered anti-semitic to be consistent with your previous posts.

Chosen People,

Does Pope Pius XII rank among those righteous Gentiles you mention? If so, has he been the victim of an unjust attack by prominent jewish leaders and others?

 

[dixieagle]

They have created a climate of intimidation that very few have the backbone to stand against. And if there does happen to be such a poor soul to appear on the scene, they are immediately castrated for all the world to see as a lesson on what not to do.

Gosh, I sure hope you mean “castigated.” :bigyikes:

 

[latinmasslover]

Truth doesn’t change, so yes, there are many issues on which the Church has sometimes been right and sometimes wrong. This appears to be one of them. You admit that this is not a “constant teaching,” because you admit it has changed. You can cling to the old teachings, but it does mean you are dissenting from Catholic teaching in this area. I just hope you make that clear so that non-Catholics are not confused about what Catholics believe.

This is a very interesting definition of ‘hate’ and of ‘charity’. This is the most common refrain when defending prejudices - my prejudices are OK because they are true.

I advocate only Christ’s view of love. I am having trouble fitting this idea – that an entire race of people have been rendered incapable of discerning good from evil because the distant ancestors of some of them supposedly bear the guilt for rejecting Christ – into my understanding of Christian love and charity.

Christ did not speak of any curse, in fact expressly forgave those responsible for his death from the cross. Peter, Paul, and James struggled with how much Gentile converts should be made to be like Jews - not the other way around - and never suggested that any such curse existed.

I truly do not understand how you can say that I’m dissenting from the Church. As you admitted, the belief of the curse has changed; the Church was right then and is wrong now, or it’s the other way around. It cannot be both. I dissent from a current opinion, that is all. Until the Church makes clear by some infallible statement, this is simply a matter of opinion. Is the current mentality correct, or that last several hundred years of Saints, Popes, and Councils?

What prejudice? I, and others, expressed a view that has been the Church’s for quite a while. I never (and as I recall, no one else here did either, unless I happened to overlook it ) say that the holocaust was a good thing, that the Jews got what they deserved, etc. Am I hateful if I say that Hindus worship false gods? Why were the Jews God’s “chosen people?” What about innocent children born to the Gentiles? Did the Jews have the right, in the eyes of God, to be cruel to the Gentiles simply because they were Gentiles? Same issue when discussing the curse, in my opinion.

Christ’s view of love. What is that? He did quite a bit of condemning, did He not? He says to obey the S&P because they sit on the seat of Moses, and then issues some very strong rebukes towards them. Love doesn’t lie because the truth is too hard to bear. Everyone is born with the ability to discern right from wrong, curse or no curse. Like I said earlier, the curse isn’t a focus of Christianity, the same as the devil isn’t. We can’t focus on all the bad. We obviously have different views of whether or not there was a curse, but then again, the Church’s view differs as well.

Was there a curse? Yes. Is it over? I don’t know. I don’t care. The curse is of no consequence. Our job is to lead others to Jesus, but you can’t do it with a lie.

 

[juliamajor]

I truly do not understand how you can say that I’m dissenting from the Church. As you admitted, the belief of the curse has changed; the Church was right then and is wrong now, or it’s the other way around. It cannot be both. I dissent from a current opinion, that is all. Until the Church makes clear by some infallible statement, this is simply a matter of opinion. Is the current mentality correct, or that last several hundred years of Saints, Popes, and Councils?

What prejudice? I, and others, expressed a view that has been the Church’s for quite a while. I never (and as I recall, no one else here did either, unless I happened to overlook it ) say that the holocaust was a good thing, that the Jews got what they deserved, etc. Am I hateful if I say that Hindus worship false gods? Why were the Jews God’s “chosen people?” What about innocent children born to the Gentiles? Did the Jews have the right, in the eyes of God, to be cruel to the Gentiles simply because they were Gentiles? Same issue when discussing the curse, in my opinion.

Christ’s view of love. What is that? He did quite a bit of condemning, did He not? He says to obey the S&P because they sit on the seat of Moses, and then issues some very strong rebukes towards them. Love doesn’t lie because the truth is too hard to bear. Everyone is born with the ability to discern right from wrong, curse or no curse. Like I said earlier, the curse isn’t a focus of Christianity, the same as the devil isn’t. We can’t focus on all the bad. We obviously have different views of whether or not there was a curse, but then again, the Church’s view differs as well.

Was there a curse? Yes. Is it over? I don’t know. I don’t care. The curse is of no consequence. Our job is to lead others to Jesus, but you can’t do it with a lie.

You truly do not get it- tis a pity.By not obeying what current popes(from John XXIII on) enycylicals,documents then you can’t be Catholic-that makes you a protester and in bed with Martin Luther and clan. Are you that different then those individuals. ?You want the church to be ‘your way" or they way you believed it was and what it should be. The Church saw otherwise.There are growths in doctrine- they do not form over night but take time.Some centuries(Immaculate Conception Prime example).Hatred and bigotry made the Jews unpopular - as well as the separation from other peoples made them suspicious in the eyes of people. That was the past with prejudices of the past-ignorance has much to do with bigotry and hatred-Knowledge changes- theology allows for such growth. It can not remain static - like the word of God does not remain static. The truth of it remains constant like the truth"GOD IS LOVE" How we perceive and look at that quote or document or whatever- can change but not in it’s core-it’s fundamental. As For “curse” and the “sins of the father being visited on the son” Check Ex: 20:5,DT 5:9; And there are those who say it isn’t visited on the descendants. DT 24:16;more famously Ezekiel 18:20 and of course when Jesus cures a blind man the apostles ask what sin did his parents committed and jesus tells them none - it happened so God may be glorified.Many Prophets denied that sins were visited on the descendants of a sinner and last time I looked that’ was the view the Church took.God’s Mercy and Love trumps everything else.AS far as “hatred”- if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck quacks like a duck. !!

 

[TMC]

I truly do not understand how you can say that I’m dissenting from the Church.

From the catechism:

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388

This is what the Pope has said about the authority of the Catechism:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The catechism is clear on this point. It is the sure teaching of the Magisterium. We can debate what was taught in the past, but a belief that there is curse on the Jewish people is undeniable dissent from this teaching. It is not infallible. I am not saying that dissent from it is heretical or schismatic. But it is the sure teaching of the ordinary magisterium and to disagree is to dissent on this issue.

 

[GerardP]

You truly do not get it- tis a pity.By not obeying what current popes(from John XXIII on) enycylicals,documents then you can’t be Catholic-that makes you a protester and in bed with Martin Luther and clan. Are you that different then those individuals. ?

That’s not quite true. Not all encyclicals carry the same magisterial weight. Many if not most encyclicals are simply the opinions of Popes as private theologians or philosophers.

Only in cases where the language indicates that the Pope is binding something with magisterial authority are the Popes commanding obedience.

On the other hand JPII’s “reflections” as he called them in many encyclicals are his opinion alone. Far different from his infallible declaration that women cannot be ordained.

You want the church to be 'your way" or they way you believed it was and what it should be. The Church saw otherwise.

That also isn’t true. “the Church” didn’t bind anything in Vatican II. It presented a series of policies that are completely human and can (and God willing soon ) will be reversed.

There are growths in doctrine- they do not form over night but take time.Some centuries(Immaculate Conception Prime example).

It’s the understanding of doctrine that develops. The Church knew and taught that Mary was pure from the beginning. They weren’t sure of the specific nature of her purity. Just as St. Augustine called the Eucharist Our Lord’s flesh as “a latent mystery”. St. Thomas Aquinas later developed that understanding into “transubstantiation.” The mystery is the same, the expression of that mystery is better expressed by Aquinas so as to block misunderstandings that crept up between Augustine and Aquinas.

Hatred and bigotry made the Jews unpopular - as well as the separation from other peoples made them suspicious in the eyes of people.

Everyone is unpopular to someone. The question is, are some jews responsible for some portion of that hatred and bigotry?

That was the past with prejudices of the past-ignorance has much to do with bigotry and hatred-Knowledge changes- theology allows for such growth.

There was no new knowledge gained in the 1960’s. John XXIII wanted jews and other non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism.
He was hoping for a pentecostal moment in the Church that would prevent events like WWII from happening again.

It can not remain static - like the word of God does not remain static.

Truth does not change, God does not change.
“As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.”
The truth of it remains constant like the truth"GOD IS LOVE" How we perceive and look at that quote or document or whatever- can change but not in it’s core-it’s fundamental.

As For “curse” and the “sins of the father being visited on the son” Check Ex: 20:5,DT 5:9; And there are those who say it isn’t visited on the descendants. DT 24:16;more famously Ezekiel 18:20 and of course when Jesus cures a blind man the apostles ask what sin did his parents committed and jesus tells them none - it happened so God may be glorified.

God cursed man and the earth in Genesis. All men suffer under the curse of Original Sin.

Children of drug addicts and alcoholics often suffer the consequences of their parents sins.

Re: the blind man. God cursed him with the blindness so that he would be confirmed in his faith by Christ. That doesn’t mean that some other parents weren’t passing along their troubles.

Bishop Sheen said that “sin is in the blood” and that is why Christ must shed His blood in an infinitely perfect way to appease and infinitely offended God.

Bishop Sheen also said about suffering that God sometimes reaches out with his scarred hand and touches people. And that scarred hand leaves His own scar upon them.

Many Prophets denied that sins were visited on the descendants of a sinner and last time I looked that’ was the view the Church took. God’s Mercy and Love trumps everything else.

That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t allow curses to be taken upon. He simply draws good out of the evil that others do.

AS far as “hatred”- if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck quacks like a duck. !!

That doesn’t hold since the Devil can look, walk and act like an angel of light. Conversely, Christ looked like a convicted criminal hanging between two thieves on the cross.

 

[juliamajor]

Too bad we haven’t learned anything new since the 60’sBut I’m sure that’s just fine with some people who’d like to be frozen in time because it just so comfy.This website abounds with all kinds of documents past and present .When it comes to everything stated by popes prior to John XXIII it’s always treated as gospel.Anything after treated , I’d say very cavalierly. I am very aware that all documents(generic term) are not created equal.Again by using "human’ you begin to sound very protestant- in fact maybe so called traditionalist should be called Neo Protestant or Semi Protestant…same mentality.“we’re trying to save the Church” or “trying to purify the church” or "“we’re gonna show you we’re you went wrong” Or “we’re going to make the Church the way it should be” sound familiar? sound a little protesty? Church can always use purification and a new cleaning but going backe to the 50’s is like throwing the baby out with the bath water Responsible for"hatred and Bigotry’ how noble of you to blame the victim and those oppressed. Hey, maybe slaves were responsible for their mistreatment? All that inter tribal warfare showed how irresponsible and savage they were. !! “Sins of the father being Visited on the children” retribution is a concept that change and develops over time to periods of chastisement of believers instead of punishment descended from naughty ancestors.Really a primitive concept with deep roots in paganism. I stated that truth stays constant-core fundamentals. The world may move and dance in different direction but God remains the same-Hopefully our knowledge of him will grow.As far as hatred and bigotry and making an analogy with Our Lord- sorry but I find that extremely distasteful.

 

[Seamus_L]

Everything before John XXIII is treated as Gospel ??? My experience has been the exact opposite. In most parishes if you mention things like Vatican I, the Baltimore Catechism or the Council of Trent you’d get some strange looks from the liberals who want the church to get in tune with the times. And as for being a Neo-Protestant, I’m more of a Neo-Counter Reformationist, who doesn’t offer any apologies for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc

 

[juliamajor]

Everything before John XXIII is treated as Gospel ??? My experience has been the exact opposite. In most parishes if you mention things like Vatican I, the Baltimore Catechism or the Council of Trent you’d get some strange looks from the liberals who want the church to get in tune with the times. And as for being a Neo-Protestant, I’m more of a Neo-Counter Reformationist, who doesn’t offer any apologies for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc

You- you all- is whom I’m talking about. -Liberals and traditionalist opposite sides of the same coin. as far as i’m concerned disrespectful of clerics they don’t agree with and generally cranky with people who don’t agree with them.Another Point Fundamentalist and Ultra traditionalists agree on- they both know whose going to hell(usually they other guy) and they so self assured that they are absolutely right.

 

[Xpat]

I may be wrong but it seems that being critical of the Jews/Israel in ANY way is considered anti-semitic by many Jews and Christians alike. Our present pope is considered in league with the leader of Iran because he brought back to life the TLM which includes a once a year prayer for the salvation of the Jewish people.

 

[Valke2]

I may be wrong but it seems that being critical of the Jews/Israel in ANY way is considered anti-semitic by many Jews and Christians alike. Our present pope is considered in league with the leader of Iran because he brought back to life the TLM which includes a once a year prayer for the salvation of the Jewish people.

That’s some statement. The Jewish outcry over this must be great indeed, as Jews have made no secret in the media as to how they feel about the leader of Iran (I can’t spell his name either).

 

[latinmasslover]

You- you all- is whom I’m talking about. -Liberals and traditionalist opposite sides of the same coin. as far as i’m concerned disrespectful of clerics they don’t agree with and generally cranky with people who don’t agree with them.Another Point Fundamentalist and Ultra traditionalists agree on- they both know whose going to hell(usually they other guy) and they so self assured that they are absolutely right.

Putting words in the mouth of another is lie, and lying is a sin (unless that changed recently too!). Who here has specified the damned?

You nag on trads, yet what you say is ***no ***different from your accusations. You are turning all post-Vatican II popes into gods, and every word from their mouths into the Gospel, which is a sin (or maybe pagan worship is permitted now?).

My point, if you read my posts, was: WHO IS RIGHT? The Popes then or the Popes now? Answer that. Nobody answers that simple and CLEAR little question. And defend your answer: How do you know the current Popes are correct over the last several centuries of Popes, Saints, and Councils?

 

[latinmasslover]

From the catechism:

This is what the Pope has said about the authority of the Catechism:

The catechism is clear on this point. It is the sure teaching of the Magisterium. We can debate what was taught in the past, but a belief that there is curse on the Jewish people is undeniable dissent from this teaching. It is not infallible. I am not saying that dissent from it is heretical or schismatic. But it is the sure teaching of the ordinary magisterium and to disagree is to dissent on this issue.

Like I said, this has never been an issue for me, I’m no expert here. When I come across the document(s) that say the contrary I will post it/them for a comment.

BTW, Thank you for the charitable response.

 

[jj2011]

Again, for non-Catholics who wish to learn about the traditional Catholic position, I find it summed up in many respects by Malachia, last of the OT prophets.

In chapter 1 he announces that the temple worship will not be accepted any more, adding (in verse 11) that the name of God, from east to west, will be great among the Gentiles, and that everywhere there is incense and a pure offering. In the second century St. Justin Martyr, who had disputed with a Jew named Trypho, cited this verse in connection with the eucharist; Catholics to this day consider this verse fulfilled in the Mass.

As for the supposed curse, the Old Testament agrees with Romans 11 about the final reconciliation of the Jews. Catholics believe this will be the work of the ‘two witnesses’ of the Apocalypse; the prophet Malachia in chapter 4 speaks of a return of Elias:

4 Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, the precepts, and judgments. 5 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with doom.

Clearly there cannot be any curse which would prevent the final reconciliation described here.

My apologies to those long-suffering souls whose thirst for knowledge about the true catholic position was great enough to induce them to endure this thread.

Shalom le-Yisrael.

Whew.

 

[Seamus_L]

Romans 11 is not applicable to this argument for two reasons. First, it is of no use to those Jews who die rejecting Christ’s mercy. Second, the Roman Catholic Church has always taught us to NEVER be complacent or to have a false sense of security about our own salvation.