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

[Sirach2]

Una Fides:

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.

Your disagreement is with the Church, not with me, and you stand ready to denounce any presentation I may submit in defense. If my credentials or citations seem qualified enough to you, possibly you might believe me, but I doubt it. When anyone attacks the church with wording as you have just used, there is little point in continuing to debate. Just one more incidence of “Our TLM prayer is superior to your heretical Novus Ordo prayer.” And if you did not believe this was heretical, why the inference in the topic title? One who is wiser than the Church will certainly not accept an opinion from an insignificant lay person like myself. I send you back to the Magisterium to discover the reason for the prayer wording they presently use, when the Pope had the opportunity to change it and did not do so.

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, it is. However, I don’t think that’s what the old prayer was calling for.

 

[una_fides]

Your disagreement is with the Church, not with me, and you stand ready to denounce any presentation I may submit in defense. If my credentials or citations seem qualified enough to you, possibly you might believe me, but I doubt it. When anyone attacks the church with wording as you have just used, there is little point in continuing to debate. Just one more incidence of “Our TLM prayer is superior to your heretical Novus Ordo prayer.” And if you did not believe this was heretical, why the inference in the topic title? One who is wiser than the Church will certainly not accept an opinion from an insignificant lay person like myself. I send you back to the Magisterium to discover the reason for the prayer wording they presently use, when the Pope had the opportunity to change it and did not do so.

You seem so judgmental. How do you know I think the prayer is heretical? If you would have read the thread you would have seen that people already accused me of such but I explained that I started this thread because I wanted answers and am seeking the truth. If you can explain how this prayer can be reconcilled with what the Church has always taught for 2000 years or even just try to reconcile it with the previous prayer the Church had used for at least 1500 years, I am waiting. Again I ask for evidence because I want to find answers and have an open mind seeking the truth and you are backing down and are trying to attack me and impugn my motives. If you don’t have answers or just don’t feel like trying, just say so.

 

[Sirach2]

Dear Una Fides,

I’m not about to read 360 posts to understand what you previously said. You should have opened another thread as one poster suggested.

Nevertheless, It seemed very clear to me in your statement yesterday, that you are instructing the faithful to reject the prayer. Why would that be necessary? Where is the search for truth behind a statement that is this radically in opposition to the Church? Have you asked the clergy? Or rather, did you not prefer an opinion of a blogger, and state that you agreed with it? Why would you accept my opinion when your mind is made up?

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. *
I may pray about this and ask the Lord whether to spend time composing a lengthly study, since I had taken a theology course many years ago presented by the Archdiocese of Detroit. It is not something easily answered in a single post. You would do well to ask someone in authority to refer you to a full understanding of this.

 

[chosen_people]

Thanks for the racism, I feel compelled now to bow-down like a slave to your mind’s immaculate conception of God (I am sure your perfect mind does not need to be told this, but that was sarcasm).

No human being ever needed the pre-cursor of another human being or statue to conceptualize God, seeing as God first comes to mind for anyone and everyone as an idea, generally thought to be omnipotent, untouchable, indescribable, and beyond all things and everything : utterly sovereign, all-powerful, and usually an utterly alien (in the sense of distinctness) entity. It is only after this that our experiences may or may not refine our conceptualization of God. This being a fact obvious to everyone who can think -except, it seems, you- I kindly ask you delete your racist remarks and re-think your idea of humanity, wherein you actually exist in and as part of that mass, without being mystically seperated. Seem harsh ? Your own theology demonstrates it, and - not surprisingly - is also wrong, even from a purely Jewish perspective, as when you said :

" It has been well over three thousand years since we broke from the pagan… "

By “we” you must mean you and yours, and the fact is you and yours did not break free from paganism : God broke your people free from it, and if I recall my Old Testament, it was not an easy struggle, as the tendency to revert was problematic for the Israelites, and God had to keep disciplining the Israelites to be free from it. The sublte slip-up there would force everyone to believe that the Israelites miraculously saved themselves, and God didn’t even need to involve Himself, which forces me to conclude that what you really meant to say was,

“It has been well over three thousand years since [God broke us free] from the pagan [system of worship],”

Which means nothing on this forum, as God likewise liberated us, through pure and utter Grace, and all humanity from that same massively monstrous system of religion, and through us eliminated pagansim from most of the world, especially where it was worst of all and wont to use human sacrifices. Now, if you actually imagine Catholicism to be pagansim, we can start another thread, because frankly I don’t think you even know what paganism really was, and how absolutely sadistic, perverted and monstrous it really was : you don’t know this because the worst cases of it have been systematically removed from the Earth, usually by process of conversion to Christianity, or the throwing down of the kingdoms that supported and financed its systematic enslavement and debauchery of all mankind.

Pax,
Tim

Well hopefully neither I nor the prophet Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 16:19) are “racist”

I believe a real example of racism in the context of this thread, are the racial purity rules of the Jesuit order which were in effect until 1946, the year following the end of the Shoah. According to these rules, Jewish blood was so tainted that if a Jew converted to Catholicism, only after five full generations free of Jewish blood, could a descendant of the converted Jew join the Jesuit order. As for the evil racial characteristics of the Jews which made such rules necessary, these were fully and repeatedly detailed in the Civilta Cattolica.

 

[Shin]

Oh? “fully and repeatedly detailed” is it? Well then: quote the actual sources, and cite directly. If it is so fully and repeatedly detailed, you should have it available for us right here and now.

 

[una_fides]

Dear Una Fides,

I’m not about to read 360 posts to understand what you previously said. You should have opened another thread as one poster suggested.

Nevertheless, It seemed very clear to me in your statement yesterday, that you are instructing the faithful to reject the prayer. Why would that be necessary? Where is the search for truth behind a statement that is this radically in opposition to the Church? Have you asked the clergy? Or rather, did you not prefer an opinion of a blogger, and state that you agreed with it? Why would you accept my opinion when your mind is made up?

**
I may pray about this and ask the Lord whether to spend time composing a lengthly study, since I had taken a theology course many years ago presented by the Archdiocese of Detroit. It is not something easily answered in a single post. You would do well to ask someone in authority to refer you to a full understanding of this.

I’m glad you are admitting that you have not studied this matter. You don’t need to read the entire thread. Just read the first post and try to reconcile the Church’s old prayer with the new. Do you believe the Church changed this teaching or that they can be reconciled? If the latter, then your understanding of the new prayer will need to change. Many people including myself after a lot of study including of the original Latin text and tons of history of Church teachings (much of which is available in this thread) have concluded that the only way the new prayer can be understood correctly is that “continue to grow” must be understood as growing to conversion and fulfillment into the new covenant. The problem is that many people, including yourself, read the new prayer and think that it’s saying that the Jews should not convert and should remain in their old covenant, which is contrary to 2000 years of infallible Catholic teaching. Because the prayer is vague at best it should be removed, regaress of the liberal media and the Jewish protests it would produce.

 

[chosen_people]

Oh? “fully and repeatedly detailed” is it? Well then: quote the actual sources, and cite directly. If it is so fully and repeatedly detailed, you should have it available for us right here and now.

Of course:

You may want to start with the anti Jewish campaign of the journal which began in 1880 with a series of 36 extremely anti-Semitic articles published over a period of forty months. All these articles were drafted by Father Giuseppe Oreglia di Santo Stefano, one of the journal’s founders. The articles posited that Jews are obligated by their religion to hate all non Jews, that societies require special laws to protect themselves from the Jews, that Jews threaten social harmony and economic security. “if this Jewish race is left too free, it immediately becomes the persecutor,oppressor, tyrant, thief and devastator of the countries where it lives”
“The Jews-eternal insolent children, obstinate, dirty, thieves, liars ignoramuses, pests and the scourge of those near and far-…immediately abused [their new found freedom] to interfere with that of others. They managed to lay their hands on …all public wealth…and virtually alone they took control not only of all the money…but of the law itself in those countries where they have been allowed to hold public offices”. The Jews have the nerve to complain of persecution “at the first shout by anyone who dares raise his voice against this barbarian invasion by an enemy race, hostile to Christianity and to society in general.”
(Oreglia, Civilta cattolica,1881,IV,pp.108-109 ) see chapter six - The Catholic Press - “The Popes against the Jews - the Vatican’s role in the rise of modern anti-Semitism” by David I. Kertzer and sources there).

 

[Sirach2]

Una Fides:

I’m glad you are admitting that you have not studied this matter. You don’t need to read the entire thread.

I never admitted I haven’t studied this matter - I merely said I haven’t read the thread.

Many people including myself after a lot of study including of the original Latin text and tons of history of Church teachings (much of which is available in this thread) have concluded that the only way the new prayer can be understood correctly is that “continue to grow” must be understood as growing to conversion and fulfillment into the new covenant.

Good for you and the many people. You surely don’t need my (name removed by moderator)ut, right? I’m very wary about where I cast my pearls, especially when there is a recognizable predisposition to disregard – and quickly refute – all others’ comments that do not agree with your POV.

The problem is that many people, including yourself, read the new prayer and think that it’s saying that the Jews should not convert and should remain in their old covenant, which is contrary to 2000 years of infallible Catholic teaching. Because the prayer is vague at best it should be removed, regaress of the liberal media and the Jewish protests it would produce.

Do you see the mindset that has already determined what I believe? And what should be done? Why would I burst your bubble and disappoint you by sharing my truth?

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:

You are disingenuous with this comment and reinstating the thread, because you did not read it anew, but as a review, having posted the very same link here many months ago. This tells me you are deeply obsessed with this prayer and have a predilection against any who hold a view contrary to your own.

No, the Lord is not inspiring me to share anything further.

 

[chosen_people]

1. The Torah and the prophets make clear that God will always preserve a faithful remnant of the Jewish people and that the covenant between God and the Jewish people is permanent; Genesis 17:17;Leviticus 26:44,45;Deuteronomy 4:27;7:6-9;Isaiah 54:10,17;59:21;Jeremiah 46:27-28;Malachi 3:6
2. The commandments of the Torah are Eternal:
   Genesis 17:9-10;Exodus 31:16;Deuteronomy 11:1;Deuteronomy 28:46;Deuteronomy 29:28;Psalm 111:7-9;2 Kings 17:37;Ezekiel 37:24-25;Malachi 3:22

3)The Torah will be in effect in the Messianic Age:
Ezekiel 37:25;Isaiah 2:3

God’s Torah is perfect:
Psalm 19:8-10

The Laws of the Torah may not be increased or decreased:
Deuteronomy 4:2;Deuteronomy 13:1 [12:32 in Christian bibles]

God will not change His mind:
Numbers 23:19-20;1 Samuel 15:29

What does the Christian wish to pray to God concerning the Jew?- that God will help the Jew to break his eternal covenant with God and thus be cut off forever from God and the Jewish people or does the Christian pray to God for God to break His eternal covenant with the Jew?

 

[Ockham]

You may want to start with the anti Jewish campaign of the journal which began in 1880 with a series of 36 extremely anti-Semitic articles published over a period of forty months. All these articles were drafted by Father Giuseppe Oreglia di Santo Stefano, one of the journal’s founders.

Anti-semitism is not exclusive to Jesuits or Catholics as I’m sure you know.

 

[Shin]

Of course:
“The Popes against the Jews - the Vatican’s role in the rise of modern anti-Semitism” by David I. Kertzer and sources there).

You’re just taking secondary-sourced quotes, taken out of context and cut, spliced, and pasted into that biased book’s context instead, aren’t you? You don’t actually have the full source material on hand at all, no? in its real context?

 

[chosen_people]

You’re just taking secondary-sourced quotes, taken out of context and cut, spliced, and pasted into that biased book’s context instead, aren’t you? You don’t actually have the full source material on hand at all, no? in its real context?

Professor Kertzer’s book has a 15 page biography. My post accurately reflects Kertzer’s work, however I am the first to admit that I personally have not read most of the books listed in the biography, particularly as I am unable to read italian. If you have knowledge of any academic works refuting the accuracy of Kertzer’s translations or showing that Kertzer has manipulated the meaning and intention of the text, I would be happy to read them. You call Kertzer’s book “biased” but I don’t know what your basis is for that statement. It is hard to fathom taking the venomous quotes in the book out of context unless of course you posit that Kertzer fabricated them. Suffice it to say that there is nothing totally incongruous in the anti Jewish ideas that Kertzer attributes to the Jesuit order’s journal. Similar ideas may be found throughout “The Point” magazine of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the 1950’s. Remarkably, you made no mention of the Jesuit order racial purity rules. Such rules would not only support the contention as to accuracy of Kertzer’s quotes from the Jesuit journal but reflect on the ambivalence of attitudes toward Jews and their conversion. The two instances in Europe where large groups of Jews converted and integrated into general society, the first in Spain in the 15th Century and the second time in Germany in the 19th Century, led in both cases to the total destruction of the Jewish community.

 

[Sirach2]

Chosen People:

Similar ideas may be found throughout “The Point” magazine of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the 1950’s.

Although I know nothing of the other person in your post, I do agree with you that Fr. Feeney was extremely anti-semitic, and was severely disciplined for it. He is one-of-a-kind, though, and I don’t believe this attitude prevails among our clergy. As a Catholic, I deplore these assaults, whether verbal, written, or in deeds.

 

[WFS5801]

It is probably fruitless for me to debate with you regarding covenant understanding, for you are ready only for milk, rather than solid food. JReducation spoke the truth to you, but since you have read the bible, you are now wiser than the Church. That is unfortunate, for your mind is not open to learning, but fixed on your own understanding.

Some day, maybe you can contact your bishop or Rome and ask why the prayer was formulated in that manner, and what is the Church’s understanding of “unconditional covenant.” Meanwhile, as you struggle with a lack of education, please do not assume the Church should abide by your limited understanding.

What a convenient dodge. You can’t argue against the obvious, so you claim it’s “my” ignorance that is the problem. Save your insults and trite cliches for someone who is impressed with your non-answers.

 

[WFS5801]

Una Fides,

I’m sorry you viewed my post as ‘ad hominem’ simply because I alleged the poster lacked education on “unconditional covenants”.

The Old Covenant was the covenant God made with Moses, not the promise he gave to Abraham (and I’m the ignorant one here?) – and it was not eternal nor was it unconditional. We know it was not eternal because St. Paul said in his epistle to the Hebrews that it was passing away. We know it was not unconditional because in Exodus 19.5 God clearly uses “if” they keep their word – a conditional statement.

The problem is that some Catholics seem to be infected with the Scofield “dual-Covenant” nonsense. This is not infallible Catholic doctrine. It opposes true Catholic doctrine, no matter how confused current bishops seem to be on the subject. And we must compare the writing of current bishops with sound Catholic doctrine and the teaching of the Church throughout history. “Test the spirits” – Catholics were never required to exhibit blind loyalty except in “Ex Cathedra” pronouncements.

 

[insalaco]

Professor Kertzer’s book has a 15 page biography. My post accurately reflects Kertzer’s work, however I am the first to admit that I personally have not read most of the books listed in the biography, particularly as I am unable to read italian. If you have knowledge of any academic works refuting the accuracy of Kertzer’s translations or showing that Kertzer has manipulated the meaning and intention of the text, I would be happy to read them. You call Kertzer’s book “biased” but I don’t know what your basis is for that statement. It is hard to fathom taking the venomous quotes in the book out of context unless of course you posit that Kertzer fabricated them. Suffice it to say that there is nothing totally incongruous in the anti Jewish ideas that Kertzer attributes to the Jesuit order’s journal. Similar ideas may be found throughout “The Point” magazine of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the 1950’s. Remarkably, you made no mention of the Jesuit order racial purity rules. Such rules would not only support the contention as to accuracy of Kertzer’s quotes from the Jesuit journal but reflect on the ambivalence of attitudes toward Jews and their conversion. The two instances in Europe where large groups of Jews converted and integrated into general society, the first in Spain in the 15th Century and the second time in Germany in the 19th Century, led in both cases to the total destruction of the Jewish community.

Are you really suggesting You Tube as a credible source? There is no such thing as Jesuit racial purity laws. Where do you get this stuff?!!!

I would suggest you take a look at Innocent III “Constitution on the Jews.” It’s 12th century, I think. I would further suggest you take a look at Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies.” This is significant because the Jesuits were formed to combat Luther and the rest of the protestants.

Speaking of protestants - I haven’t read this whole thread either and I don’t intend to. But the genius who started this thread is a protestant. The word “Justification” is not Catholic speak… Its very protestant. Specifically, Martin Luther.

 

[chosen_people]

Are you really suggesting You Tube as a credible source? There is no such thing as Jesuit racial purity laws. Where do you get this stuff?!!!

I would suggest you take a look at Innocent III “Constitution on the Jews.” It’s 12th century, I think. I would further suggest you take a look at Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies.” This is significant because the Jesuits were formed to combat Luther and the rest of the protestants.

Speaking of protestants - I haven’t read this whole thread either and I don’t intend to. But the genius who started this thread is a protestant. The word “Justification” is not Catholic speak… Its very protestant. Specifically, Martin Luther.

I did not use Youtube as the source of my material but the book by Professor Kertzer. You will also be able to find numerous references on the Internet, at your local University and no doubt if you ask your local priest. Kertzer talks of 1592 but I understand the demand for a full 5 generations free of Jewish blood was introduced in 1608.

To further understand the underlying attitudes of Catholic Spain and the Catholic Church toward Jews at that time, it should be noted that with the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, a series of laws, the estatutos de limpieza de sangre (statutes of blood purity) were promulgated. According to these laws, anyone with Jewish ancestry was excluded from occupying positions of prestige in Spanish society.

In 1547 the archbishop of Toledo issued a new law banning any Christian who was descended from Jews from receiving any form of assistance from the archdiocese. In 1555 the law was ratified by Pope Paul IV and served as a model for the Church throughout Spain. Candidates for admission to universities or the civil service had to submit genealogies to show that they were free from Jewish blood. Those found to have had a Jewish ancestor were denied the position and publicly humiliated. Various monastic and other Church religious orders similarly excluded descendants of Jews.

These things aren’t secrets and they are anti-Catholic propaganda. Are Papal edicts and Papal bulls not available to the Catholics? Are history books detailing the history of the Catholic Church and the Jews not available to Catholics? Do Catholics believe, for instance, that the Jews placed themselves in ghettos or that they made themselves wear special clothing marking them as Jews?

 

[Shin]

Uh yes actually.

Jewish law requires distinctions that separate the Jews from the Gentiles, including particular Jewish clothing. And also special living arrangements. The ‘ghettos’ in fact were often requested and constructed by Jewish leaders, to be places where Jewish laws applied and Jewish courts, and so on and so forth.

Of course if you’re a liberal Jew, you don’t obey these things, but that’s neither here nor there. There’s an upstate NY Jewish ‘ghetto’ today, you can look at the Hasidic Jews…

The problems of course always started when people started breaking religious laws and trying to pretend to be something other than they were, to get benefits.

 

[chosen_people]

Uh yes actually.

Jewish law requires distinctions that separate the Jews from the Gentiles, including particular Jewish clothing. And also special living arrangements. The ‘ghettos’ in fact were often requested and constructed by Jewish leaders, to be places where Jewish laws applied and Jewish courts, and so on and so forth.

Of course if you’re a liberal Jew, you don’t obey these things, but that’s neither here nor there. There’s an upstate NY Jewish ‘ghetto’ today, you can look at the Hasidic Jews…

The problems of course always started when people started breaking religious laws and trying to pretend to be something other than they were, to get benefits.

Well if the Jews wanted to live in ghettos then there would have been no need to for the Popes to force them by edict to live in ghettos. If they wanted to wear special ridiculous and insulting looking clothing marking them as Jews, then again there would have been no need for the Popes to make those rules.

I hope you were not being serious, but if you were this might help:
myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/Early_Modern/roman-ghetto.shtml