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

[diggerdomer]

Just because they Church is not currently actively proclaiming the unpopular truth like she used to does not mean that she no longer believes the same truth. The Church is currently trying to be as politically correct as possible and not offend anyone and by saying that the Jews–who follow the Old Covenant–are faithless offends them, though it is the truth. Instead the Church is taking a more positive approach. Also just because the Church no longer refers to Protestants as heretics by name, does that mean that they no longer are?

Whether the Church is being politically correct is a matter of opinion. I disagree that the Church is being politically correct. The Pope clearly does NOT worry about being politically correct as evidenced by the numerous “uproars” in the news his various statements and actions have caused. The Church clearly is NOT worried about being politically correct for example via its teachings on life issues.

And yes, the Catholic Church does not equate being a Protestant with being a heretic.

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerdomer,

The teachings of the Church, even if they are almost 2000 years old, are, in fact “current”, because they do not change. Your request for a recent clarification is nonsense. Do you think the Church changed its teaching about the Jews since Vatican II??? This is inane and silly…The only people making that claim are (or at least “should be”) people who don’t understand that the Church doesn’t change its teachings.

If recent popes want to sort of create an ambiguity and side-step an issue…fine, that’s their problem. God will judge them. That, nevertheless, doesn’t mean the constant and perennial teaching has changed…It just means that the popes, instead of continuing to boldly proclaim the truth, rather make use of modern “political correctness” literally “for fear of the Jews”.

So…the Popes are wrong…and you’re right? Is that the gist of your point?

Teachings can and do change. Not all teachings of course. But some do. Slavery for example.

Yes, the Church has changed its teachings on relations with the Jews since Vatican II. That’s why the prayer changed, to better reflect the Church’s belief.

 

[Abenadar]

And yes, the Catholic Church does not equate being a Protestant with being a heretic.

Yes it does…the term is “material heretic”, AKA “separated brethren” (LOL).

 

[Abenadar]

So…the Popes are wrong…and you’re right? Is that the gist of your point?

Of course not…Are you being silly on purpose??? The gist of my point is that 260 popes confirmed a teaching…All of a sudden the last 5 popes have had a hard time confirming that message, though we know that it hasn’t changed.

Teachings can and do change. Not all teachings of course. But some do. Slavery for example.

Disciplines change…Dogma doesn’t. It is dogma that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church…There is no other church (or synagogue). Therefore we must still pray for the conversion of all peoples to the Catholic faith.

Yes, the Church has changed its teachings on relations with the Jews since Vatican II. That’s why the prayer changed, to better reflect the Church’s belief.

The Church may have changed the style of language it uses when engaging the Jews, but that doesn’t mean the teaching has changed. They need to become Catholic just like everybody else needs to become Catholic. We must continue to pray for their conversion because there is only one true religion on this earth, and that isn’t Judaism.

 

[cassman]

Una Fides,

I wanted to compliment you on your posts in this thread. They have all been right on. It is good to see someone else defend the Church and Her traditions on this forum. I have yet to see anyone refute your posts, especially the quotes from the gospels and St. Paul. They continuously attempt to cite “newer” authorities who try to make sense of the change of direction since Vatican II regarding the Jews. Keep up the good work!

 

[EasterJoy]

Of course not…Are you being silly on purpose??? The gist of my point is that 260 popes confirmed a teaching…All of a sudden the last 5 popes have had a hard time confirming that message, though we know that it hasn’t changed.

Disciplines change…Dogma doesn’t. It is dogma that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church…There is no other church (or synagogue). Therefore we must still pray for the conversion of all peoples to the Catholic faith.

The Church may have changed the style of language it uses when engaging the Jews, but that doesn’t mean the teaching has changed. They need to become Catholic just like everybody else needs to become Catholic. We must continue to pray for their conversion because there is only one true religion on this earth, and that isn’t Judaism.

You know, it could just be that this has no direct connection with Vatican II.

It could be that what has changed is that 6 million of the world’s 12 million Jews and more than two out of every three European Jews were killed because they were Jews. Hitler was elected in a Christian country not in spite of his hatred of Jews and willingness to blame them for the country’s problems, but because of it. Hitler had long ago left the Church, but what of the rest of Germany? Where, where, could they have possibly gotten the idea that anti-semitism and Christianity were compatible?

Surely no Pope before Pius XII was confronted with the depth of the evil that anti-semitism could engender. Surely none, even those of his predecessors who wrote in anti-semitic terms, could imagine such an atrocity against so many innocent people, from the oldest to the youngest. If any did, and yet singled out the Jews from among the rest of us as “perfidious” or singled them out as a nation that should no longer exist–Heaven forbid that such a thing were possible!–may God have mercy on his soul.

And who was the first Pope elected after Pius XII? Blessed John XXIII.

Maybe, if you were in Europe during World War II, as every Pope since Pius XII was, and especially if you were confronted by the workmanship of the Nazis in daily life, against people you grew up with as a child, as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict were, maybe what seems a “sudden” change in emphasis makes all the sense in the world. Maybe you would know what singling out a nation in prayer for their “perfidiousness” can do.

Never. Never Again. Or may God have mercy on all of us, if we did not take their part.

 

[JReducation]

Yes it does…the term is “material heretic”, AKA “separated brethren” (LOL).

Actually not. Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint made it very clear that we should stay away from such language, because it is offensive. The reason that it is offensive is because those who are born into the Reformation communities have not committed heresy. Their forefathers who broke away from the Church did, but not their descendants. Check out heretic in canon law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I believe that part of the problem is that some ;people think that words such as “faithless” and “perfidious” Jews are dogmas. They are not. They never were. They were a way of using language at a particular time. But that language no longer works, because in today’s world it is interpreted in a very negative way. It is not interpreted theologically, but as the language of discrimination and religious arrogance.

This is something that we learned very clearly in novitiate and seminary training, as well as in theology. It is not always the meaning of the word that is wrong, but the changing nuances. As time passes, people add nuances to certain words that the original people who used them would never have intended.

The Church has never intended to point to the Jews as a people without faith. She intended to point to them as a people who did not share the Christian faith or who did not have faith in Jesus Christ. But she has always recognized their faith in God, the commandments, the prophets and the Torah, which are points that we also believe.

The Church never intended for Catholics to make the conversion of the Jews an aggressive campaign, but an act of charity that was to be carried out with gentleness and through fraternal charity. That’s why I mentioned Francis of Assisi and other saints. These are wonderful examples for us to follow when it comes to dealing with people of other faiths. These saints were faithful to the Christian faith, while at the same time they were kind, gentle, non threatening, and very respectful of those to whom they preached and gave witness. Even Paul was a gentle man, even though his preaching was powerful.

Had the Church of yesteryear ever thought that the old language of the prayers used on Good Friday were going to be used with a negative conotation or would trigger negative attitudes in Christians toward Jews, they would not have used them. But that’s not how they thought when they wrote these prayers. They were thinking very differently. They were thinking of the difference between those who have faith in Christ and those who do not. The term faithless did not mean infidel or totally lacking in faith.

The Church has always understood that one of the greatest problems that Jews have with Jesus Christ is the incarnation, because the very idea of God with a human nature is, in their mind, offensive to God. Therefore, their reaction to the Christian teaching on a God who becomes incarnate and who dies a common criminal is sacrilegious. Their idea is not a faithless idea. It is a moral one. In other words, their reason for rejecting Jesus is a moral reason. They believe that it offends God. In fact, faithful Jews are really thinking that they are doing what is proper before God. When a man does what he believes to be proper before God, he is hardly lacking in faith. He is lacking in understanding. There is a big difference. The Church always understood this about the Jews. She is not insensitive to the faith of others. That is the reason why current popes have made the extra effort to visit them, spend time with them, encourage them and even take the time to with them well on their holy days, as Pope Benedict did in New York last year for Passover.

Our behavior is more important than the inclusion of the words “faithless” or “perfidious” in a prayer. Our behavior must be one of fraternal love and respect, along with a yearning desire that the Jewish people may follow the covenants of Noah, Abraham and Moses to their logical fulfillment in Jesus Christ, while they also retain their identity as a people, which is so dear to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe that part of the problem is that some ;people think that words such as “faithless” and “perfidious” Jews are dogmas. They are not. They never were. They were a way of using language at a particular time. But that language no longer works, because in today’s world it is interpreted in a very negative way. It is not interpreted theologically, but as the language of discrimination and religious arrogance.

This is something that we learned very clearly in novitiate and seminary training, as well as in theology. It is not always the meaning of the word that is wrong, but the changing nuances. As time passes, people add nuances to certain words that the original people who used them would never have intended.

The Church has never intended to point to the Jews as a people without faith. She intended to point to them as a people who did not share the Christian faith or who did not have faith in Jesus Christ. But she has always recognized their faith in God, the commandments, the prophets and the Torah, which are points that we also believe.

The Church never intended for Catholics to make the conversion of the Jews an aggressive campaign, but an act of charity that was to be carried out with gentleness and through fraternal charity. That’s why I mentioned Francis of Assisi and other saints. These are wonderful examples for us to follow when it comes to dealing with people of other faiths. These saints were faithful to the Christian faith, while at the same time they were kind, gentle, non threatening, and very respectful of those to whom they preached and gave witness. Even Paul was a gentle man, even though his preaching was powerful.

Had the Church of yesteryear ever thought that the old language of the prayers used on Good Friday were going to be used with a negative conotation or would trigger negative attitudes in Christians toward Jews, they would not have used them. But that’s not how they thought when they wrote these prayers. They were thinking very differently. They were thinking of the difference between those who have faith in Christ and those who do not. The term faithless did not mean infidel or totally lacking in faith.

The Church has always understood that one of the greatest problems that Jews have with Jesus Christ is the incarnation, because the very idea of God with a human nature is, in their mind, offensive to God. Therefore, their reaction to the Christian teaching on a God who becomes incarnate and who dies a common criminal is sacrilegious. Their idea is not a faithless idea. It is a moral one. In other words, their reason for rejecting Jesus is a moral reason. They believe that it offends God. In fact, faithful Jews are really thinking that they are doing what is proper before God. When a man does what he believes to be proper before God, he is hardly lacking in faith. He is lacking in understanding. There is a big difference. The Church always understood this about the Jews. She is not insensitive to the faith of others. That is the reason why current popes have made the extra effort to visit them, spend time with them, encourage them and even take the time to with them well on their holy days, as Pope Benedict did in New York last year for Passover.

Our behavior is more important than the inclusion of the words “faithless” or “perfidious” in a prayer. Our behavior must be one of fraternal love and respect, along with a yearning desire that the Jewish people may follow the covenants of Noah, Abraham and Moses to their logical fulfillment in Jesus Christ, while they also retain their identity as a people, which is so dear to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Abenadar]

You know, it could just be that this has no direct connection with Vatican II.

I would tend not to agree with this…as most things out of VII tend to confuse, not enlighten…Thus the mass confusion amongst most Catholics today.

It could be that what has changed is that 6 million of the world’s 12 million Jews and more than two out of every three European Jews were killed because they were Jews.

You could be right…but I’d probably agree for a different reason.

Hitler was elected in a Christian country not in spite of his hatred of Jews and willingness to blame them for the country’s problems, but because of it. Hitler had long ago left the Church, but what of the rest of Germany? Where, where, could they have possibly gotten the idea that anti-semitism and Christianity were compatible?

Where, where could the majority of America’s Catholics possibly have gotten the idea that abortion and Christianity are compatible? I’m of course talking about our current president.

Surely no Pope before Pius XII was confronted with the depth of the evil that anti-semitism could engender.

This is strictly an opinion, and one that doesn’t particularly hold a lot of water. There are a lot greater evils confronting the Church, and there always have been.

Surely none, even those of his predecessors who wrote in anti-semitic terms, could imagine such an atrocity against so many innocent people, from the oldest to the youngest.

How naive. The holocaust was, what, 6 years? The first 300 years of Christianity was a bloody persecution, and there have been many times since that have also been bloody. Also, don’t forget that three million polish Catholics were murdered in the holocaust, as well as many others…so it wasn’t just a “jewish” experience. And in the course of the 20th century the Holocaust is not particularly large when you consider some of the other genocides, nor was it the first one in the 20th century. The Jews, in no way, have a monopoly on suffering, either in the 20th century or in any other century. That is just ludicrous, so let’s just drop the philo-semitism that creates reverse discrimination and national/religious guilt by falsely claiming that the Jews, of all the people of the world, have suffered most, and always at the hands of European Christians/Catholics etc. I think popes understand this, but apparently many people today do not.

Also, can you cite examples of anti-semitic papal writings so that I can know what you’re talking about? For instance, are you talking about the council of Florence, or something else that I’m not aware of. As far as I can tell, anti-semitism has always been sinful, and generally speaking, popes and clerics try to avoid sin, not propagate it.

And finally, I’ll mention that anti-semitism never has been the greatest evil facing the Church, contrary to what your emotions are telling you.

If any did, and yet singled out the Jews from among the rest of us as “perfidious” or singled them out as a nation that should no longer exist–Heaven forbid that such a thing were possible!–may God have mercy on his soul.

The Church calls for the conversion of everybody. The point about “faithless” is that the Jews once had the one, true religion, but then lost it.

And who was the first Pope elected after Pius XII? Blessed John XXIII.

Ok…and?

Maybe, if you were in Europe during World War II, as every Pope since Pius XII was, and especially if you were confronted by the workmanship of the Nazis in daily life, against people you grew up with as a child, as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict were, maybe what seems a “sudden” change in emphasis makes all the sense in the world. Maybe you would know what singling out a nation in prayer for their “perfidiousness” can do.

The prayer never said anything about perfidy in the sense that we know it today.

Anyway, as far as this thread goes, the Church calls our covenant with God the “new and eternal” covenant. If this covenant is new, then it’s not the old one, so it’s false to just let the Jews continue practicing their old one.

The new and eternal covenant is…New…Therefore I draw the conclusion, backed up throughout the centuries from the good book to even modern times, that the old covenant has been abrogated

Never. Never Again. Or may God have mercy on all of us, if we did not take their part.

Why are you so hyper-sensitive about this? You say “Never Again” seemingly with so much conviction and vehemence, but it has happened, again, and again (but not to the Jews) since the Holocaust, and yet nothing is done about it, nobody talks about it (particularly not the MSM, though they still run articles about the holocaust every week), and nobody remembers having once said “Never Again!”. Remember Croatia in the 90s??? Does the term “ethnic cleansing” mean anything to you? What about the “cleansing” that’s been taking place for a long time in Africa. The very people who you believe endured the greatest suffering, have been inflicting that suffering on the Muslims and Catholics in Palestine/Israel since '48. Do you remember what happened in December and January ('08/'09) and the blockade/concentration camp that is still in place there? Where’s your self-righteous “Never Again”??? Perhaps you should speak with more fact and less feeling…And before you start attempting to label me as an anti-semite you should know that I am compassionate about the suffering of all human life, not just where the Jews are concerned. Moreover, I’m not lessening the evil of the holocaust, I’m simply saying that it was one tragedy in a long line of known and unknown tragedies throughout history.

 

[Abenadar]

Actually not. Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint made it very clear that we should stay away from such language, because it is offensive.

Offensive but accurate…He can have his opinion about what type of language to use, and there definitely is a difference in talking about somebody, versus talking to them. One wouldn’t call a protestant a material heretic, the way you wouldn’t tell a jew he’s faithless (or has a veil over his heart)…That doesn’t mean it’s not true though, and it doesn’t mean you can’t refer to them with some precision when praying for them so that we know where they stand.

The reason that it is offensive is because those who are born into the Reformation communities have not committed heresy. Their forefathers who broke away from the Church did, but not their descendants. Check out heretic in canon law.

That’s why they are material heretics, and not formal heretics. Or if you prefer, you can refer to them as your separated brethren, but that doesn’t mean that that “separation” is acceptable the way the term ambiguously implies. They still need to convert to Catholicism.

 

[JReducation]

Offensive but accurate…He can have his opinion about what type of language to use, and there definitely is a difference in talking about somebody, versus talking to them. One wouldn’t call a protestant a material heretic, the way you wouldn’t tell a jew he’s faithless (or has a veil over his heart)…That doesn’t mean it’s not true though, and it doesn’t mean you can’t refer to them with some precision when praying for them so that we know where they stand.

That’s why they are material heretics, and not formal heretics. Or if you prefer, you can refer to them as your separated brethren, but that doesn’t mean that that “separation” is acceptable the way the term ambiguously implies. They still need to convert to Catholicism.

Where is the charity and the contribution to the spiritual life in using language that offends and does nothing to improve our life of grace?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Abenadar]

Where is the charity and the contribution to the spiritual life in using language that offends and does nothing to improve our life of grace?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Did you read my post???

I didn’t advocate being uncharitable or using terms that could be construed that way, to a person’s face. At the same time it is important to have a proper grasp of who and what you’re up against…And yes, I do mean “against”. Christ said we’re with Him or we’re against Him. As long as people continue to believe and preach error, we must, in some way, be against. That doesn’t stop us from being charitable to their face.

At the same time, part of charity is knowing precisely who and what a person is. Referring to somebody as a “separated brother” blurs the distinction between whether we need to pray for this person’s conversion or not. Protestants need our prayer. If we, as lousily catechized catholics don’t provide it, should we be blamed? We’re not fulfilling our Christian duty to convert…Where’s the charity in that? We’re failing in our duty to our brothers (for they ARE our brothers in the human sense, and I’m not denying that, just so long as we also know they are our enemies, to some extent, in a religious sense).

The SAME exact thing happened with VII and the Jews. Today, EVERYBODY outside of the Church, and most of the people inside of Her, are claiming that the Church changed her teaching regarding the Jews, and that they are just fine where they are. Once again, in the spirit of false charity or PC-ness, we’ve blurred the line between whether these people need to be prayed for…or not. It is apparent, even in these fora, that many, many Catholics believe that the Jews are still in a saving covenant with God…that they’re on their own separate track straight to heaven etc.

We can be charitable when dealing with Jews/Muslims/Protestants, but we also need to realize that these people still need prayer, and our prayer must reflect our beliefs for the precise reason that we Catholics understand the situation. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

You may not realize, but it is very loving and charitable to pray for the conversion of sinners…But we must know and acknowledge the truth of the situation, and that situation is that if they’re not Catholic, we need to be praying for them. Why are others so concerned with our private prayers anyway? You don’t see me whining that Jews pray three times a day “God thanks for not makin’ me a gentile” or whatever. They can pray what they want according to their beliefs, I’m not going to cry about it.

 

[una_fides]

That the current Good Friday prayer does not single out the Jews from among all those who do not believe in Christ does not mean that we don’t pray that they will come to believe when we pray for everyone else who doesn’t believe in Christ.

So you are of the opinion that the current 1970 Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer is praying that the Jews remain Jews following their own Old Covenant? If so, you do realize that such a prayer would be contrary to the Catholic faith.

We have prayed for the conversion of the Jews for 2000 years, but one has to ask whether anti-semitism has the effect of converting Jews to Christ. Simple history says that it does not. Rather, it intensifies their impression that any Jewish Messiah whose followers persecute the Jews must have been a false Messiah.

What is anti-semitic about praying for the Jews to convert to Christ and embrace their Messiah? The word “perfidious” was removed from the prayer even before Vatican II since that word had some connotations in English which were not completely accurate, but it retained calling them “faithless” repeatedly because it is the truth, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread. And yes, the truth will be offensive, but that does not mean we blur the lines of truth for the sake of not offending. What results is people believing lies and heresies and thinking they are compatible with the Catholic faith.

That is why I think that your view that the Good Friday prayer needed no change is simple-minded and ignores the reality of the history of Jewish-Christian relations, and particularly the experience of Jews in the last century. If the Church had been as strong at condemning acts of hatred towards Jews as it should have been in the past, you might have had a case. As it is, though, that well is thoroughly poisoned, and in a more horrible manner than any previous Pope could have possibly imagined.

I think it is simple minded and emotional to think that praying for the Jews to convert to the Catholic faith is tantamount to anti-Semitism.

 

[una_fides]

Accusing the Pope of heresy is a tall accusation, and I’m sorry, but you haven’t made your case. … If your mind is still made up, though, I don’t think there is much more to be done about it.

Who is accusing “the pope” of heresy??? First, I never said anything about Pope Benedict XVI, as the Pope who inserted the prayers was Paul VI. Second, my intention was never to make a case that Paul VI was a heretic, but it seems that from the evidence provided on this thread that you have drawn your own conclusions and are simply picking sides. While we do know that a pope can be a heretic if he holds to just one known heresy but is orthodox in all the rest, I am not saying that one must conclude the Paul VI was a heretic. I am trying to figure out these things myself and have still not reached any satisfactory conclusion.

As I stated before, if the prayer in the Latin is different, which I believe it is (though I haven’t yet made time to give a full translation, as our discussion has gotten a little off point), then the translators would bear the brunt of guilt in this case. But did the pope personally approve of the various translations in each vernacular language or did he just come up with the Latin official version and then leave it up to translators? I’d also be interested to see how this prayer is translated in other languages. As we can see from our current liturgy, the US translators have taken a particular liberty where none was called for, but those errors will soon be remedied when the new English Mass translation comes out within the next year or two.

 

[una_fides]

On the question about whether or not prayers for the Jews’ fidelity to their covenant with God and prayers for their conversion to Christ are antithetical: Since the latter is non-negotiable, inherent incompatibility would preclude the use of the former, yes. But they aren’t inherently incompatible. The Pope has also been clear about why they are not incompatible. Therefore, the prayers are not heretical, and neither is the Pope.

Which pope are you talking about? Are you consistently referring to Paul VI here? Can you please quote from Paul VI where he said that Jews need to convert to Christ? I am aware that Pope Benedict’s new version of the Traditional Good Friday prayer does pray for the conversion of the Jews, but I haven’t read anywhere that Paul VI specifically prayed or taught that the Jews need Christ and need to convert to Christ. I’d like to see if he ever wrote on whether the Jews need to embrace the New Covenant to be saved or if he believed that they could be saved in their Talmudic Judaism without embracing Christ as Lord.

Here is another infallible teaching of the Church on this matter:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas all men except the Blessed Virgin - as Trent says in Sess. V] had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath, as…they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom”
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

 

[una_fides]

Una Fides,

I wanted to compliment you on your posts in this thread. They have all been right on. It is good to see someone else defend the Church and Her traditions on this forum. I have yet to see anyone refute your posts, especially the quotes from the gospels and St. Paul. They continuously attempt to cite “newer” authorities who try to make sense of the change of direction since Vatican II regarding the Jews. Keep up the good work!

Thank you. Your words are encouraging. In reading through some of these recent posts, I was actually beginning to wonder if anyone had even read those Scripture posts or if they just skimmed past them since no one arguing against using “negative” or “offensive language” has responded to them or even referenced them up to this point.

The problem with citing modern authorities is that those who consistently do so often hold to an erroneous understand of the Church and Tradition and fall into the traps of vague wording. They often assume that if something is new that it is better or somehow supersedes what has come before. However, that is not how the Church works. The Church bases herself on Tradition, so what comes before actually takes precedent! What comes before, which the Church has bound herself to is divine revelation, which consists of both Scripture and Tradition. The Church also maintains her Magisterium, and once the Church has definitively ruled on a matter, she cannot later change her mind and change the teaching; otherwise there would be no such thing as infallibility. In addition, the newer “updated” wording coming from the current Magisterium is often vague and confusing to those who have the Church’s Tradition in mind. People can easily interpret things wrongfully and think they are following the Church’s teachings. Case and point is the Novus Ordo English translation of the Good Friday prayer.

 

[una_fides]

I believe that part of the problem is that some ;people think that words such as “faithless” and “perfidious” Jews are dogmas. They are not. They never were. They were a way of using language at a particular time. But that language no longer works, because in today’s world it is interpreted in a very negative way. It is not interpreted theologically, but as the language of discrimination and religious arrogance.

This is something that we learned very clearly in novitiate and seminary training, as well as in theology. It is not always the meaning of the word that is wrong, but the changing nuances. As time passes, people add nuances to certain words that the original people who used them would never have intended.

Did you read what our Lord said to the Jews in his day? Did you read how St. Stephen preached to the Jews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The Word of God is offensive by its very nature. Christ himself is offensive and his message is offensive. That does not meant that we purposefully go around trying to offend people or that we do not act charitably towards them. Nevertheless, it is most charitable to warn someone that he is on the wrong path and to instruct him in the truth. People will be offended by the message of Christ’s gospel, and for that reason, St. Paul instructs us that they are our enemies for the gospel’s sake. The danger comes when one tries to change the gospel message or water it down with vague language so that people are actually confused as to what the truth actually is.

1 Thes 2:4 “we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who proves our hearts.”

Our goal is not to please man or use words that he will find pleasing or acceptable, but instead we must preach Christ crucified.

1 Cor 1:23 “But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

 

[chosen_people]

So you are of the opinion that the current 1970 Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer is praying that the Jews remain Jews following their own Old Covenant? If so, you do realize that such a prayer would be contrary to the Catholic faith.

What is anti-semitic about praying for the Jews to convert to Christ and embrace their Messiah? The word “perfidious” was removed from the prayer even before Vatican II since that word had some connotations in English which were not completely accurate, but it retained calling them “faithless” repeatedly because it is the truth, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread. And yes, the truth will be offensive, but that does not mean we blur the lines of truth for the sake of not offending. What results is people believing lies and heresies and thinking they are compatible with the Catholic faith.

I think it is simple minded and emotional to think that praying for the Jews to convert to the Catholic faith is tantamount to anti-Semitism.

Well I could well imagine your posts if there was a prayer in Judaism (there isn’t) that went something along the lines of : “Blessed art thou our lord king of the universe who has made me a Jew and not a Catholic who worships a false god and bows before it. Show the Catholic the way to understanding the one and true God and turn him from his false ways” - Now would you be “simple minded and emotional” to “think that praying for” Catholics to stop being Catholics might be anti-Catholic and disdainful? That’s the way, mutatis mutandis, that we Jews view the Catholic prayer for our conversion.

 

[una_fides]

Well I could well imagine your posts if there was a prayer in Judaism (there isn’t) that went something along the lines of : “Blessed art thou our lord king of the universe who has made me a Jew and not a Catholic who worships a false god and bows before it. Show the Catholic the way to understanding the one and true God and turn him from his false ways” - Now would you be “simple minded and emotional” to “think that praying for” Catholics to stop being Catholics might be anti-Catholic and disdainful? That’s the way, mutatis mutandis, that we Jews view the Catholic prayer for our conversion.

Though the prayer you just created goes much further than the Traditional Catholic prayer and is designed to be offensive, I would not say that it promotes hatred of Catholics or incites Jews to do violence against them. And if it were a traditional prayer that Jews have prayed for centuries, then I would not ask them to remove it just because it could offend people (no more than the Jews current prayers thanking God they are not like us Gentiles and that God pours out his wrath upon us heathens).

You must also realize that Catholicism is not a part of the Jewish faith, whereas the Jews do still play a part in the Catholic faith, and we believe that eventually all Israel will embrace Christ. You do not believe that Catholics are lost who do not convert to Judaism, but the Messiah taught that all must embrace him to be saved. Furthermore, Catholicism teaches that the Jews are beloved for the sake of their fathers, so we pray for them to follow their fathers in faith and be opened to embracing the Messiah of whose coming the prophets foretold. For Jews to pray for Catholics by name would be ridiculous and superfluous because Catholicism and our Lord Jesus means nothing to the Jews, whereas the Jews do still mean something to us, and we pray for them because we love them and want what we believe to be best for them. We also pray for them by name because of their special election for the sake of their faithful fathers that we pray will come to its fulfillment in Christ. We do not pray for their destruction as the Jews pray of us Gentiles, but we do pray that they will embrace our Lord and come into his saving Church, outside of which we believe there is no salvation.