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

[una_fides]

I may have misunderstood you. If so, I apologize, and thank you for clarifying. If you don’t see the two passages as contradictory, we are likely much closer to agreement than I thought. Thanks again.

I am glad we are in agreement. To summarize: we would both then understand that the Jews are the enemies of the Church for the sake of the gospel as Scripture attests and that this verse does not contradict the fact that they are beloved for the sake of their fathers and have had many blessings bestowed upon them such as being entrusted with the very utterances of God (aka the OT).

 

[una_fides]

I’m not aware that anyone on this thread has suggested that, although all people are somewhat of course united with God vis a vis the Creator/creature relationship (whether individuals acknowledge it or not).

JReducation did. If you read the context his meaning becomes apparent. Just read what he wrote and what he was responding to.
I also wouldn’t use the word “united” in describing the creature/creator relationship. We are all actually born outside a state of grace and therefore are all born enemies of God and children of the devil. Yes, I know this language is very strong and offensive, and whenever I say this, people always tend to get all up in arms about it, but if you read Catholic theology, it becomes clear. We are born in a state of original sin and lacking sanctifying grace. We are not united with God but are actually void of his sanctifying grace in our souls. For this reason, we need baptism so that we may be “born again” not as enemies of God but as his friends so that we can be in total union with Him.

“Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Wonder not that I said to thee: You must be born again.” (John 3:3-7)

“…they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:20-21)

 

[una_fides]

The Jews, because of their lack of faith in the Son of God, have been “broken off” of the tree, but they can be grafted back in if they do not continue in their faithlessness concerning their Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ.

“Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps also he spare not thee. See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.” (Romans 11:19-23)

• If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema [accursed], maranatha. 1Corinthians 16:22

 

[una_fides]

As it has been stated in this thread, the current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Orthodox Church is a sister Church of the Roman Catholic Church. According to them and other historians, the Eighth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 879-880 was fully accepted and fully endorsed by Pope John VIII, and therefore it was an infallible council. As an infallible council, it anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and therefore condemned and anathematized the addition of the filioque to the creed. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church later on changed the teaching on this.
Other changes in Catholic teaching have been in the areas of the use of torture and the keeping of slaves. Of course since VII there have been a lot of changes in Catholic teaching such as for example as you have pointed out before VII, schismatics and Jews were not saved, but after VII, they are saved. In fact, Eastern Orthodox Christians, who some peoploe say are at least schismatics, are permitted to receive the Sacraments.
orthodoxwiki.org/Eighth_Ecumenical_Council

Nice try, but the pope was not anathematized, and citing the Eastern Schismatics’ opinion on this issue does not make you correct. I suggest reading St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s “History of Heresies.” He goes this issue in detail on pages 203-210. He explains that the legates acted contrary to the orders of the pope and betrayed him and were later excommunicated by him. Moreover, even a valid General Council is not of a higher authority than a pope, and as the universal shepherd of the Church, the pope can change disciplines and rules and to say that the Nicene Creed cannot be altered would be a discipline. Furthermore, the Creed was not altered in meaning but it was instead explained further and the doctrine of the Spirit’s procession was clarified. The Spirit did not proceed only from the Father but proceeded also from the Son (filioque).
Lastly, changes in rules governing slaves and the use of torture are disciplines as we keep pointing out. No one, however, has yet to demonstrate any change of dogma in the Church prior to Vatican II. I personally do not necessarily believe that Vatican II changed any dogmas, but I do think it certainly muddied the waters of doctrinal purity with its vagueness and overly positive and optimistic overtones on a few issues such as no salvation outside the Church, religious liberty, and ecumenism. Many today, unfortunately, are still running wild with this “spirit of Vatican II.” But this “spirit” is most certainly not the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity and Truth, who cannot contradict himself in what he has already clarified and definitively taught through his Church, “the foundation of truth,” for 2000 years (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[una_fides]

I’m not aware that anyone on this thread has suggested that, although all people are somewhat of course united with God vis a vis the Creator/creature relationship (whether individuals acknowledge it or not).

I would say that all men bear the image and likeness of God so in that way you could say that we are united with him in a very loose sense of the word. But the danger in using the word “united” is that people will often think it’s referring to a spiritual untiy. Being made to reflect God does not mean that we are in spiritual union with him though we are all called to be. Indeed many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[una_fides]

Here is someone else’s take on the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer that I found online:

“Why didn’t the Jewish authorities get upset when the Novus Ordo prayer was published? Because the Novus Ordo prayer does not reflect Catholic theology – the very theology that the Jews reject. In fact, the prayer contradicts Catholic dogmatic teaching that the Jews do not have their own covenant with God outside of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. How can the Jews “continue in faithfulness to his covenant” when they have no covenant with God outside of the New Covenant, which is why we are supposedly praying for their conversion? The reason is because the Novus Ordo prayer for the Jews is not a prayer for conversion. It is a prayer for them to continue to be faithful to “his covenant.” What covenant could this possibly be? It cannot be the Old Covenant, for both Scripture and the Magisterium declare that the Mosaic Covenant, as a legal entity, has been revoked. But it also cannot be the New Covenant of Christ – the only covenant through which God grants salvation – because the prayer is for the “Jewish people” who are outside the New Covenant. It also cannot be the Abrahamic covenant, since this covenant of faith has been transformed into the New Covenant of which the Jews are not members. The ambiguity of this prayer, alone, is sufficient for it to be rejected by all faithful Catholics”
scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979316/13-what-do-you-think-about-the-new-good-friday-prayer/

 

[una_fides]

Did anyone else who attended the Traditional Mass notice the gospel reading for today about the Jews?

bracketed small font below is mine for clarity]

Matthew 22:1-14 And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage for his son. And he the Father] sent his servants the prophets] to call them that were invited the Jews] to the marriage: and they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my beeves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready. Come ye to the marriage. But they neglected and went their ways, one to his farm and another to his merchandise. And the rest laid hands on his servants and, having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. But when the king had heard of it, he was angry: and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers and burnt their city. Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found Gentiles], both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests. And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment which is charity according to pope St. Gregory the Great]. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen."

Sobering reality.

That reminds me of another parable found in Matthew 21:33-45, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19.

 

[una_fides]

The adherents of Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism also do not share your beliefs but you do not refer to them as “enemies” - only the Jews. Jews not only do not teach that people of other faiths are their enemy but that it is easier for the gentile than for the Jew to get to the world to come.
Understand the meaning of referring to Jews as enemies - understand the meaning of declarations that the Jews are as beasts fit only for slaughter - and you may start as a Catholic to begin to grasp Jedwabne.

First, I did not refer to the Jews as enemies; our Lord did in sacred Scripture. I was merely quoting from St. Paul’s inspired words. Second, anyone who rejects Jesus as Christ is also his enemy, so Jews are not in a special position of being enemies here other than the fact that God had previously blessed them repeatedly and in return they killed his prophets and eventually turned over his only Son to also be murdered. Third and most importantly, you must also keep in mind that our Lord teaches that we are to love our enemies!

Matthew 5:43-47 “You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this?”

Luke 6:27-29 “But I say to you that hear: Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you. Bless them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you. And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also.”

Luke 6:31-37 “And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. And if you love them that love you, what thanks are to you? For sinners also love those that love them. And if you do good to them who do good to you, what thanks are to you? For sinners also do this. And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? For sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much. But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest. For he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not: and you shall not be judged. Condemn not: and you shall not be condemned. Forgive: and you shall be forgiven.”

I realize that this concept may be a foreign one to the Jews as it is not a part of their rabinical tradition (and unfortunately many Catholics too do not follow or choose to ignore this teaching); nevertheless, we understand that though the Jews are the enemies of Christians for the sake of the message of truth that God has entrusted to mankind, which the Jews vehemently oppose, yet we Christians are also called to love the Jews and to do good to them. Yes, the teachings of Christ have not always been followed by many who claimed to be following them, and many evils have been done in the name of Christ, but we also know that those individuals who did so acted outside of Christ and outside of his gospel and his universal law of love of neighbor.

I realize using the wording of calling Jews enemies can for some conjure up the image of those on a battle field about to engage in battle, and in a spiritual sense that is what is taking place as there is certainly a battle for souls taking place, a battle between good and evil. Nevertheless, this battle is spiritual and not physical.

Ephesians 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

Calling the Jews our enemies for the sake of the gospel has nothing to do with physical warfare and everything to do with the attack on the truth of Christ’s gospel from the Jews. We share Christ’s saving truth with the Jews because we love them and want what is best for them–for them to share in the fullness of Christ’s grace and truth, so that they may come to share in the fullness of his redemption by entering into his ark of salvation.

 

[SHW]

I will reread through those docs later when I get some time. Regarding misinterpreting, if the Church was referring to God’s covenant of love then the prayer should have been more specific. Many people including many priests and bishops are interpreting this prayer to mean that the Jews should just continue to follow the old covenant and should not or do not need to convert to Christ and enter into his sole ark of salvation, his one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. How hard would it have been to add the words “of love” to the prayer to specify? Instead we are left with a vague prayer that continues to be abused and cited today to spread heresies.

I agree that it could have been more specific because Catholics are influenced by “various” teachings, so whenever “covenant” and “Jews” are mentioned, some persons assume that this automatically means the “OLD” Covenant.

 

[SHW]

I still don’t think obsolete is a good word, the Church doesn’t use it, and it seems to contradict what the Church does teach (e.g. CCC 71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.). “Everlasting” and “obsolete” seem contradictory to me.

The everlasting covenant with Noah is that He will never destroy by flood again the whole world (mankind except for a few persons). This covenant with Noah was not the Old Covenant.

Genesis 9:11-14
Thus I establish My covenant with you (Noah): Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;

The next time, the world (heavens and earth) will be destroyed by fire and then remade, never to be corrupted again.

2 Peter 3:11-14
Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, **because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? **13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:1
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

Everlasting means it lasts as long as the covenant lasts. Jesus made a New Covenant because He fulfilled the Old Covenant. Since He fulfilled the Old Covenant and He made a New Covenant with better promises, the Old Covenant is now obsolete and will never be in force again.

Hebrews 8:6
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Obsolete means that it is no longer in force. This is what Hebrews 8:13 records for us. The Old Covenant is now obsolete. A New Covenant is now in force and will remain forever because Jesus is the testator and He will never break His New Covenant.

 

[diggerdomer]

First, I did not refer to the Jews as enemies; our Lord did in sacred Scripture. I was merely quoting from St. Paul

So Paul said it, not our Lord.

 

[una_fides]

So Paul said it, not our Lord.

Actually they both said it. St. Paul was merely reiterating what Christ taught elsewhere in Scripture. (If you read the many quotes I have included on this thread from the words of Christ, you will see that he clearly teaches the same.) But in that particular context I was quoting directly from St. Paul’s inspired writings. Also keep in mind that what St. Paul wrote was also the Word of the Lord as he was merely the instrument, which God used to convey his message to us. I can see where what I wrote did not make that connection apparent, but hopefully this helps clarify. Nevertheless, regardless of whether it was a direct quote from Christ or from St. Paul, it is still God’s Word and as such is without any error.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually they both said it. St. Paul was merely reiterating what Christ taught elsewhere in Scripture. (If you read the many quotes I have included on this thread from the words of Christ, you will see that he clearly teaches the same.) But in that particular context I was quoting directly from St. Paul’s inspired writings. Also keep in mind that what St. Paul wrote was also the Word of the Lord as he was merely the instrument, which God used to convey his message to us. I can see where what I wrote did not make that connection apparent, but hopefully this helps clarify. Nevertheless, regardless of whether it was a direct quote from Christ or from St. Paul, it is still God’s Word and as such is without any error.

It makes a difference whether Paul is quoting a teaching of Jesus (as he does in 1 Cor 7) or not (as he does in Romans).

 

[una_fides]

It makes a difference whether Paul is quoting a teaching of Jesus (as he does in 1 Cor 7) or not (as he does in Romans).

We are definitely getting off topic here, but to answer, I’d like to ask whether you think there is a difference pertaining to the truth of a statement as to whether Scripture reports Christ teaching something or whether St. Paul is teaching something under divine inspiration of Scripture. Is not God the author of both? Yes, we do pay a higher reverence to the words of the gospel since they come directly from the lips of our savior, but as far as them both being true, there can be no argument.

Also note that Christ himself referred to the Jews as his enemies just as St. Paul did, so again St. Paul was merely reiterating the teaching of Christ. There is no conflict nor can there be. If my wording was not precise in my original posting, I hope that this clarifies. Do you disagree with something that I said? I don’t know exactly what you are trying to prove here. What is the theological significance of this difference of whether St. Paul is quoting from Christ directly or is restating his teaching?

 

[diggerdomer]

We are definitely getting off topic here, but to answer, I’d like to ask whether you think there is a difference pertaining to the truth of a statement as to whether Scripture reports Christ teaching something or whether St. Paul is teaching something under divine inspiration of Scripture. Is not God the author of both? Yes, we do pay a higher reverence to the words of the gospel since they come directly from the lips of our savior, but as far as them both being true, there can be no argument.

Also note that Christ himself referred to the Jews as his enemies just as St. Paul did, so again St. Paul was merely reiterating the teaching of Christ. There is no conflict nor can there be. If my wording was not precise in my original posting, I hope that this clarifies. Do you disagree with something that I said? I don’t know exactly what you are trying to prove here. What is the theological significance of this difference of whether St. Paul is quoting from Christ directly or is restating his teaching?

Given that Jesus was a Jew begs the question of how to interpret what you claim, that He referred to Jews as his enemies.

 

[una_fides]

Given that Jesus was a Jew begs the question of how to interpret what you claim, that He referred to Jews as his enemies.

If you don’t understand the difference of the Jewish race and the Jewish religion that rejected Christ, then I can see how it could confuse someone.

 

[una_fides]

Given that Jesus was a Jew begs the question of how to interpret what you claim, that He referred to Jews as his enemies.

You must distinguish between the Jewish race itself and the Jewish religion in terms of those Jews who rejected the fulfillment of their religion and instead rejected their Messiah. Jesus was a Jew by race and his upbringing, but the Jewish religious leaders of his day as a whole rejected him, though there were a few of them, such as St. Paul who converted and entered His Church.

When Jesus refers to the Jews as his enemies, he is referring to the Jewish religion and its religious leaders that rejected him and merely not to anyone who is of the Jewish race. As I’ve pointed out over and over again, the apostles and many of the early Christians were Jews but obviously chose to follow the religion that fulfilled and made obsolete the former law rather than follow the Jewish leaders who were the enemies of Christ. Those are the “Jews” of which Christ was referring. Not the race but the religion, consisting of its leaders and followers, who rejected and deny Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

As far as the religion of the Jews goes:

“1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach”

. as well as

"42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies”

.

I think it is wrong that Jesus counted the Jewish religion as antithetical to Himself. He, as taught by the Church, is holding those who don’t even try to do the will of God as the ones that are doing the will of the “father of lies”.

When one is suspicious of the Church and its councils, the only thing left is personal interpretation to fit the subject at hand.

All this seems to me is judging intentions based on how closely they accept and follow a specific interpretation, personal interpretation in this case, of a specific doctrine. As someone can be aware of a doctrine and still be ignorant of it, we need look less at others and concentrate on ourselves. Personal anathema’s toward a group is so unnecessary, as if the Church has dropped the ball and must be picked up to lead others to salvation.

 

[una_fides]

I realize this thread has not been visited in a while, but I was just reading a question with answer provided by apologist John Salza on the topic of this thread that I thought I would share:
scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979316/13-what-do-you-think-about-the-new-good-friday-prayer/

I agree with his conclusion. The Novus Ordo version of the Good Friday prayer is vague and problematic at best and needs to be fixed and in the mean time rejected by the faithful on account of its ambiguity.

 

[gentle_atheist]

I think that this post nails it, even if I am quoting myself.

Notwithstanding Church dogma, you have to look at the prayer itself:

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”

What, exactly, are Catholics praying for?

“…that they may continue to grow in the love of his name…” Whose name? The name of Jesus? Do Jews love the name of Jesus?

“…that they may continue to grow … in faithfulness to his covenant.” Which covenant? The New Covenant? Do Jews even accept the New Covenant? If not, then how can they “continue to grow” in their faithfulness to it?

Let’s modify the prayer for clarity and see which version makes more sense:

1. “Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name, Jesus, and in faithfulness to the New Covenant.”
2. “Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name, Yahweh, and in faithfulness to the Old Covenant.”

The first version makes no sense at all. The second version makes perfect sense. But this is a Catholic prayer promulgated by a Catholic pope recited in the Catholic Church on the most solemn day of the Catholic calendar. The second version – the only version that makes sense – is heretical. But the Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy, so the prayer can’t be heretical.

It can’t. But it is. Like it or not, Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

That last line is so important that it should be shouted:

LIKE IT OR NOT, CATHOLICS ARE PRAYING FOR JEWS TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM AND RESUME ANIMAL SACRIFICES.

As I have mentioned before, the operating principle of the Catholic Church from Vatican 2 onward can be summed up in one word: APPEASEMENT.

I am a cradle Catholic who was so astonished by what I saw happening in the Catholic Church that I finally chucked the whole thing and became an atheist.