Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?

[Walking_Home]

I know what the 1913 encyclopedia says, and I understand what you think about infallibility. I just can’t find any current Church teaching to support your claims.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (i.e. an updated one to the one you keep citing) was published in 2003 and says this, in part, in its article on infallibility:

Its entry on ecumenical councils only refers to the article on infallibility and does not mention infallibility itself.

You may think conciliar infallibility has been understood by the Church from its beginning, but I don’t know of any historical evidence to support that (if you do, please share) and I don’t know anywhere that the Church claims that is true. It’s an opinion. Doesn’t matter to me if one holds it or not, I just don’t think it’s correct to say the Church teaches it as fact.

Using the word anathema is hardly a guarantee of infallibility being exercised.

---

You’ve created a dead Church for yourself diggerdomer–one with no head and no foundation. If that is your “idea” of Church—change your identification from Catholic --to something other.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you were taught that the General Councils such as Florence and Vatican I were not infallible, then you should ask for your money back. If they are conclusions you drew on your own, then please do state so. You are not citing any sources other than saying you went to a seminary you think was orthodox and seem to think that because of that your conclusions cannot possibly err. I admire that you have studied the faith, but if what you believe on any particular teaching is true, then it should have nothing to hide when compared with what the Church has always taught and your understandings should be in tune with the same sense as the Church has always held.

You have got to be kidding. He’s explaining the Good Friday prayers as they were promulgated by the Pope, who has supreme authority over all liturgies in the Roman Catholic Church. The burden of proof is not on him, but on you. Quite frankly, you haven’t made your case. Since my sense is that you’re repeating yourself in bolder type with underlines, I’m going to leave you to your unchangeable opinion.

At least one of us here is trying to teach a pig to sing. It’s time to give it up and blow this pop stand.

Thanks for trying.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by una fides View Post
If you were taught that the General Councils such as Florence and Vatican I were not infallible, then you should ask for your money back. If they are conclusions you drew on your own, then please do state so. You are not citing any sources other than saying you went to a seminary you think was orthodox and seem to think that because of that your conclusions cannot possibly err. I admire that you have studied the faith, but if what you believe on any particular teaching is true, then it should have nothing to hide when compared with what the Church has always taught and your understandings should be in tune with the same sense as the Church has always held.

---

Actually and Truthfully No—It is JR and you who are left up in the air. And I thank you for trying --but failed.

 

[pnewton]

You’ve created a dead Church for yourself diggerdomer–one with no head and no foundation. If that is your “idea” of Church—change your identification from Catholic --to something other.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.” — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R

How then is being faithful to what our legitimate, presiding bishops make us anything but Catholic?

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
You’ve created a dead Church for yourself diggerdomer–one with no head and no foundation. If that is your “idea” of Church—change your identification from Catholic --to something other.

---

If you search thru diggerdomer’s posts --I believe over at the Liturgy forum–you will find that he views the papacy in the more Orthodox Church sense. This is what I meant by --no head. In this thread–digger is trying to put across that nothing prior to Vat II can be declared infallible. Therefore we have no foundation of Truth. A Church with no head and no foundation.

 

[pnewton]

---

If you search thru diggerdomer’s posts --I believe over at the Liturgy forum–you will find that he views the papacy in the more Orthodox Church sense. This is what I meant by --no head. In this thread–digger is trying to put across that nothing prior to Vat II can be declared infallible.

Will do.

 

[Walking_Home]

If you search thru diggerdomer’s posts --I believe over at the Liturgy forum–you will find that he views the papacy in the more Orthodox Church sense.

---

I may have gotten diggerdomer confused with another member at this site --concerning the subject of the papacy. I offer my apology to diggerdomer-- for the mix-up in this respect.

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually and Truthfully No—It is JR and you who are left up in the air. And I thank you for trying --but failed.

When I realize I have been attempting the impossible, I don’t count quitting the effort as a failure.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Actually and Truthfully No—It is JR and you who are left up in the air. And I thank you for trying --but failed.

---

Well --when one is attempting to justify with air–it’s as you say–impossible. Then ending it by using more air–that just fails.

 

[EasterJoy]

---

Well --when one is attempting to justify with air–it’s as you say–impossible. Then ending it by using more air–that just fails.

OK…“Well”… if it is air that something was promulgated and approved by the last 4 Popes, the supreme authorities on earth when it comes to litugy, at least three of whom had in common with no Popes before Pius XII their direct experience of the Holocaust, in which 3/4 of the Jews of Europe, observant or not, were exterminated, then I guess I’m trying to teach someone who is more Catholic than not just the Pope, but the last *four *Popes, and quite an authority on the Jews, too.

I surrender to unassailable authority. I don’t think you need the Pope any more or less than the Church of England needs the Queen.

 

[una_fides]

OK…“Well”… if it is air that something was promulgated and approved by the last 4 Popes, the supreme authorities on earth when it comes to litugy, at least three of whom had in common with no Popes before Pius XII their direct experience of the Holocaust, in which 3/4 of the Jews of Europe, observant or not, were exterminated, then I guess I’m trying to teach someone who is more Catholic than not just the Pope, but the last *four *Popes, and quite an authority on the Jews, too.

I surrender to unassailable authority. I don’t think you need the Pope any more or less than the Church of England needs the Queen.

Perhaps you are just wrongfully interpreting these last four popes to fit your own private interpretations.

I don’t see where any of them said explicitly that Jews should continue to follow the Old Covenant, yet you persist to interpret the 1970 Novus Ordo version of the Good Friday prayer in that way, and despite the fact that the current pope, Benedict XVI has revised the prayer from the Church’s Traditional liturgy to explicitly pray for the conversion of the Jews as the Church has done for 2000 years, this same pope who lived through the Holocaust is indeed saying that the Jews need Jesus, and we should pray that they find him!

 

[Walking_Home]

OK…“Well”… if it is air that something was promulgated and approved by the last 4 Popes, the supreme authorities on earth when it comes to litugy, at least three of whom had in common with no Popes before Pius XII their direct experience of the Holocaust, in which 3/4 of the Jews of Europe, observant or not, were exterminated, then I guess I’m trying to teach someone who is more Catholic than not just the Pope, but the last *four *Popes, and quite an authority on the Jews, too.

I surrender to unassailable authority. I don’t think you need the Pope any more or less than the Church of England needs the Queen.

---

Well that explains it-- it seems the “only” valid Church is the one presided over by the last 4 Popes. So out goes what gave us our foundation–our roots back to Christ --and in its place you built a house of cards.

 

[diggerdomer]

---

If you search thru diggerdomer’s posts --I believe over at the Liturgy forum–you will find that he views the papacy in the more Orthodox Church sense. This is what I meant by --no head. In this thread–digger is trying to put across that nothing prior to Vat II can be declared infallible. Therefore we have no foundation of Truth. A Church with no head and no foundation.

No I am not. Sorry if you read it that way.

I have no problem accepting that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was taught infallibly by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

Please, be more careful (if not charitable) in your accusations, at least base them in fact and not your imagination.

 

[Walking_Home]

No I am not. Sorry if you read it that way.

I have no problem accepting that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was taught infallibly by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

Please, be more careful (if not charitable) in your accusations, at least base them in fact and not your imagination.

---

So you pick and choose what you consider infallible or not. That still leaves the Church in a rather unstable foundation–ready to topple over with the next wind.

 

[EasterJoy]

Perhaps you are just wrongfully interpreting these last four popes to fit your own private interpretations.

I don’t see where any of them said explicitly that Jews should continue to follow the Old Covenant, yet you persist to interpret the 1970 Novus Ordo version of the Good Friday prayer in that way, and despite the fact that the current pope, Benedict XVI has revised the prayer from the Church’s Traditional liturgy to explicitly pray for the conversion of the Jews as the Church has done for 2000 years, this same pope who lived through the Holocaust is indeed saying that the Jews need Jesus, and we should pray that they find him!

Well that explains it-- it seems the “only” valid Church is the one presided over by the last 4 Popes. So out goes what gave us our foundation–our roots back to Christ --and in its place you built a house of cards.

You didn’t even read my posts, did you? I don’t think you’ve read the Holy Father’s explanation of the Covenant with regards to the Jews, either. I’m beginning to think you haven’t read anything written since the doctrine of infallibility was declared, and that in translation, since you couldn’t translate the Pope’s new version of the Good Friday prayer yourself.

Pope Benedict XVI found the prayer from the Traditional liturgy was the one that needed revision, not the one from the Ordinary Form. Not that he couldn’t change that one if he wanted to, as well, or that he would be implying that Pope Paul VI was a heretic, if he did.

But this is pointless. The next time you start a thread with a rhetorical question and a mind that’s made up, please be less ambiguous and vague, and say so up front.

 

[Walking_Home]

You didn’t even read my posts, did you? I don’t think you’ve read the Holy Father’s explanation of the Covenant with regards to the Jews, either. I’m beginning to think you haven’t read anything written since the doctrine of infallibility was declared, and that in translation, since you couldn’t translate the Pope’s new version of the Good Friday prayer yourself.

Pope Benedict XVI found the prayer from the Traditional liturgy was the one that needed revision, not the one from the Ordinary Form. Not that he couldn’t change that one if he wanted to, as well, or that he would be implying that Pope Paul VI was a heretic, if he did.

But this is pointless. The next time you start a thread with a rhetorical question and a mind that’s made up, please be less ambiguous and vague, and say so up front.

---

Well I read Pope Benedict XVI’s message provided prior. Where he states our mission is to proclaim the Gospel to all and evangelize all peoples until the salvific sovereignty of Christ is fully accomplised --for the eternal salvation of peoples is at stake. This message is quite different from what has been peddled in this thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

---

So you pick and choose what you consider infallible or not. That still leaves the Church in a rather unstable foundation–ready to topple over with the next wind.

Not at all. I am not picking and choosing. I am going by what the Church teaches. The Church is a sure foundation.

 

[una_fides]

You didn’t even read my posts, did you? I don’t think you’ve read the Holy Father’s explanation of the Covenant with regards to the Jews, either. I’m beginning to think you haven’t read anything written since the doctrine of infallibility was declared, and that in translation, since you couldn’t translate the Pope’s new version of the Good Friday prayer yourself.

Perhaps you are the one who is having difficulty reading because it seems you clearly missed THIS POST where I translated the Latin version and provided explanation. I’m beginning to think whenever I post anything that you are reading something entirely different into them than what I’m saying or that you’re not reading them at all. You continue to say that it’s hopeless, yet again not too many posts ago I explained my perspective HERE. I also suggest reading the preceding post as well to which you still have not responded. Lastly, you seemed to have missed THIS POST from Walking Home, in which he reproduced exactly what Pope Benedict has taught on this subject. And who again is not paying attention?

Pope Benedict XVI found the prayer from the Traditional liturgy was the one that needed revision, not the one from the Ordinary Form.

Perhaps you are just wrongfully interpreting these last four popes to fit your own private interpretations.

I don’t see where any of them said explicitly that Jews should continue to follow the Old Covenant, yet you persist to interpret the 1970 Novus Ordo version of the Good Friday prayer in that way, and despite the fact that the current pope, Benedict XVI has revised the prayer from the Church’s Traditional liturgy to explicitly pray for the conversion of the Jews as the Church has done for 2000 years, this same pope who lived through the Holocaust is indeed saying that the Jews need Jesus, and we should pray that they find him!

Again who is not paying attention? I was pretty sure I wrote the Pope Benedict modified the Good Friday prayer from the Church’s “Traditional Liturgy” and did not write “Novus Ordo” but you can re-read above and judge for yourself.

But this is pointless. The next time you start a thread with a rhetorical question and a mind that’s made up, please be less ambiguous and vague, and say so up front.

Again read my posts!! I started this thread because I wanted to find answers and was open to figuring it out!! It seems that you are the one who has her mind made up as you will not even discuss these matters and provide any evidence but instead keep resorting to ad hominem attacks and accusing everyone else of being closed minded.

Can we please loose the drama and get back to the specific issues here?

No reason for hurt or angry feelings. Good chance to offer it up so we can move on and answer the specific points being raised.

 

[Walking_Home]

Not at all. I am not picking and choosing. I am going by what the Church teaches. The Church is a sure foundation.

---

And of course with the same understanding, the same meaning, in the same sense of what the Church thru the ages has held and understood—right.

 

[una_fides]

Okay, so back onto the topic of the prayer for the Jews in the Novus Ordo liturgy. I have a question. Can we understand there to be one overarching covenant that God has made with man that began with the Old and was fulfilled with the New? If so, then when we have the vague wording of “his covenant,” then we could understand the Jews as growing into faithfulness in their part of the covenant into the fullness of God’s covenant that was fulfilled in the New. Is there any teaching from the Church regarding one overarching covenant of God?

To me it seems that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and therefore God’s true Covenant and only valid and operational covenant of all time would be the New Covenant in His Blood. If that is the case, then I don’t see how the Jews could be considered to progress in faithfulness to this Covenant if they have not yet entered into it through Christ. Or can we understand there to be a different sense of God’s covenant that somehow the Jews are a part of or are currently growing in?