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

[una_fides]

When did the Catholic Church first say that the Jews still had an eternal covenant with God ?

I don’t ever recall reading that before Vatican II. I’d be interested if anyone can find any Church teachings prior to that point that taught that the Jews still have an eternal covenant.

 

[una_fides]

Now it may just be that as an Israeli my mastery of the english language is too rudimentary, however it would seem to me that you meant to say that it was a complaisant Pope who sought to appease the Jews as opposed to what you wrote: that the the change in the prayer was meant to appease complaisant Jews.

No I meant complaisant Jews. I meant no offense by that statement, though I can see how perhaps you took it that way. Below you will find evidence of the Jewish complaints that Catholics would actually pray for their conversion, despite the fact that Jews thank God three times a day that they are not Gentiles and during the Passover pray that God would pour out his wrath upon and destroy us Gentiles. We must both respect the others’ religious beliefs, and the teachings of Jesus Christ and of his Church are that all men should be converted to him and acknowledge him as Lord. “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:10-11).

“Jews criticized the new version because it still says they should recognize Jesus Christ as the savior of all men. It asks that “all Israel may be saved” and Jews said it kept an underlying call to conversion that they had wanted removed.” haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973427.html

“Jewish leaders wanted Pope Benedict XVI to change the wording of the prayer for Jews in the traditional Good Friday liturgy. The Pope honored their request; he made a change. But the Jewish leaders aren’t happy.”
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=56485

"Jewish groups around the world have condemned Pope Benedict XVI’s new version of a Catholic Good Friday prayer. SPIEGEL ONLINE talks to prominent German rabbi Walter Homolka about why the prayer is insulting to Jews and discusses alleged anti-Semitic tendencies within the Catholic Church."
spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542872,00.html

Why is it that it’s anti-Semitic to pray the Jews (along with all other religions) convert to Christ? If we believe that in Christ is the fullness of truth and happiness then why wouldn’t we want to share this with Jews and the rest of the world? Why would this offend anyone? especially since it’s what we believe and is what Jesus himself taught: “Jesus said to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Now I have never understood the notion that just because Catholics have not yet reached a point where they are able to grasp the concept of God without giving Him a human form and representing Him in statues and pictures and just because they have not reached a point where they are able to grasp Torah in its fullest and widest sense, that they should be denied access to the world to come. This indeed is the position of Judaism. A gentile is more likely to get into the world to come as he/she has only to follow the seven Noahide commandments.

On the other I am unable to fathom the Catholic attitude that it should be pleasing either in the eyes of Jews or of God their prayers aimed to interfere with the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people.

Because we don’t just make this stuff up. We follow a revealed religion, as do the Jews. The difference is that we accept Jesus as the Messiah and follow his teachings in the New Testament as additional revelation from God. We cannot change that. We accept it because we accept Christ, and we accept Scripture because we accept the Church that Christ established while here on earth. We cannot just change what Christ taught about himself and deny that He was truly the Son of God. We do not make Him into that. He has revealed this to his Church, and we follow His revelation. Likewise, we do not make up that he is the means by which anyone can enter heaven. Again he revealed this as well. We believe that he is the one whom Moses and Isaiah prophecies to come. The one greater than Moses who would intercede and offer himself on behalf of his people as the suffering servant to appease the Father for the sins of mankind.

The nature of divine revelation is not that we change it into what we want it to be or what may seem easy, pleasing, or acceptable to us. Rather we change what we believe and bring it into conformity with God’s revelation. The Father has revealed the Son to call all men to conversion into his kingdom.

 

[una_fides]

Sts. Peter and Paul did not abandon the covenant, but recognized its fulfillment in Christ.

The Old Covenant was fullfilled and now as a result all are to follow the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.

From the infallible Council of Florence:
“The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, **came to an end *and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. … it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces * all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors.”

…
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock,…, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Peter and Paul stopped following the Old Covenant and its prescriptions and followed the New for to follow the Old brings death but only the New Covenant in Christ brings life.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t ever recall reading that before Vatican II. I’d be interested if anyone can find any Church teachings prior to that point that taught that the Jews still have an eternal covenant.

Actually, this has been taught by the Church since St. Paul. Read Romans (boldface mine: EasterJoy)

“I ask then, has God rejected his people? Of course not! I myself am an Israeliste, of the tribe of Benjamin…Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, lest you be conceited; blindness has come upon part of Israel until the full number of Gentiles enter in, and then all of Israel will be saved. As Scripture says, “Out of Zion will come the deliverer who shall remove all impiety from Jacob; and this is the covenant I will make with them when I take away their sins.” In respect to the gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake; in respect to the election they are beloved by him because of the patriarchs. God’s gift and his call are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God and now have received mercy through their disobedience, so they have become disobedient–that they too may receive mercy. God has imprisoned all in disobedience that he might have mercy on all. How deep are the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How inscrutable his judgments, how unsearchable his ways! For “who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has given him anything so as to deserve return?” For from him and through him and for him all things are. To him be glory forever. Amen.” Roman 11:1,25-36

 

[una_fides]

I think a Jew who remains faithful to God’s covenant, who is faithful to worship and making his life into a witness of God’s love for the world is closer to full conversion than a Jew who is Jewish in name only, or is Jewish as an ethnic identity, or who abandons Judaism entirely for some other religion or philosophy. Love of and dedication to God cannot possibly be an impediment to eventually learning the love of Christ.

Therefore, I don’t see any conflict between a prayer for their continuing fidelity and a prayer for their conversion. To pray for their continued fidelity recognizes that they do worship the one True God. This they do, even if they don’t recognize that the fulfillment of God’s promises have come to pass.

To pray that someone in the water will continue to keep his head above the water is not at odds with a prayer that he will later be taken into the boat. Continuing to breathe is a good thing, and not an impediment to rescue. Besides, it doesn’t do any good to run rescues in a way that drives the victim away from the boat, even if you know there is a limit to how long one can remain in the water without rescue. I think this is the Church’s thinking, too. There is no implied heresy in that.

If you pray that the Jews remain only faithful to the Old Covenant and do not convert to the New, then you are effectively praying for their damnation. You have a good analogy because the Church is viewed as the ark of salvation to all men. However, to pray that the Jews remain as faithful Jews without praying that they get on the ark is praying that they will drown. The wording of the Good Friday prayer is not that they will grow in faithfulness to the revelation available to them *and *eventually come to conversion to Christ. It is praying only that they would continue to grow in the same faith that they already have. They are not staying afloat with their heads above water by not accepting Christ and by following their old law, which Scripture tells us brings death not life. They are drowning. Yes, they might have a better chance at accepting Christ if they are following the Old Covenant in invincible ignorance and are completely open to God and his grace and calling in which case we can only hope that when the gospel is revealed they will freely accept. On the other hand, they very well could become obstinate and prideful in their beliefs, which for the Talmudic Jews is no longer only steeped in God’s OT revelation but also has their Jewish rabbinical traditions added on, which Christ condemned as “traditions of men” and as contrary to his saving gospel. Often the latter is the case. They obstinately think that they could not possibly have been raised to believe something incorrectly and that God is on their side (as do most people) and as a result they reject the gospel of Christ when it is presented to them. Why would they need it if they already have their own separate covenant with God?

If you pray for the Jews to follow the Old Covenant you are not doing them a service. IMHO it seems heretical. My only hope in reconciling this prayer with the Traditional teachings of the Church is that the English is just a poor translation of the Latin as so many of the modern prayers in our liturgy also are. (Fortunately, they will be correcting the liturgy within the next year or so.)

Again if anyone knows where we can find the original Latin version of this prayer it would be quite helpful!

 

[una_fides]

Actually, this has been taught by the Church since St. Paul. Read Romans (boldface mine: EasterJoy)

“I ask then, has God rejected his people? Of course not! I myself am an Israeliste, of the tribe of Benjamin…Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, lest you be conceited; blindness has come upon part of Israel until the full number of Gentiles enter in, and then all of Israel will be saved. As Scripture says, “Out of Zion will come the deliverer who shall remove all impiety from Jacob; and this is the covenant I will make with them when I take away their sins.” In respect to the gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake; in respect to the election they are beloved by him because of the patriarchs. God’s gift and his call are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God and now have received mercy through their disobedience, so they have become disobedient–that they too may receive mercy. God has imprisoned all in disobedience that he might have mercy on all. How deep are the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How inscrutable his judgments, how unsearchable his ways! For “who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has given him anything so as to deserve return?” For from him and through him and for him all things are. To him be glory forever. Amen.” Roman 11:1,25-36

I knew that someone was going to post Scripture on this. Do you have anything from the Roman Catholic Church (post apostolic era) that gives an interpretation or explanation of this Scripture or the teaching that the Jews still have an eternal covenant with God?

Here is Haydock’s commentary:
“Rom 11:25-26 I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, this hidden truth of God’s justice and mercy, that blindness in part hath happened in Israel, or to part of them, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, by the conversion of all nations: and then all Israel should be saved, when they shall submit to the faith of Christ: as it is written by the prophet Isaias, (lix. 20.) there shall come out of Sion he that shall deliver; that is, their Redeemer, Christ Jesus, who is indeed come already, but who shall then come to them by his powerful grace. This is my covenant with them. (Witham)”

It would appear that God’s only remaining “covenant” with Israel is that they will be saved through the New Covenant through faith in Christ. However, the Jews are not being faithful to this convenant, hence the Church has continued over the many centuries to pray for the “faithless Jews” because they have not faith in Christ and his everlasting covenant. The only covenant that the Jews can “continue” to be faithful to is the Old because they are not being faithful to the New nor do they have any faith in this only true covenant that is now in effect.

Also notice the following verses you quoted but did not bold face: “In respect to the gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake”
The Jews are not on the side of God right now, as they continue to follow their rabbinical traditions. The Church teaches they need to embrace Christ, who is their Messiah that they rejected.

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. (quoting Psa 118:22)

 

[EasterJoy]

I knew that someone was going to post Scripture on this. Do you have anything from the Roman Catholic Church (post apostolic era) that gives an interpretation or explanation of this Scripture or the teaching that the Jews still have an eternal covenant with God?

Here is Haydock’s commentary:
“Rom 11:25-26 I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, this hidden truth of God’s justice and mercy, that blindness in part hath happened in Israel, or to part of them, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, by the conversion of all nations: and then all Israel should be saved, when they shall submit to the faith of Christ: as it is written by the prophet Isaias, (lix. 20.) there shall come out of Sion he that shall deliver; that is, their Redeemer, Christ Jesus, who is indeed come already, but who shall then come to them by his powerful grace. This is my covenant with them. (Witham)”

It would appear that God’s only remaining “covenant” with Israel is that they will be saved through the New Covenant through faith in Christ. However, the Jews are not being faithful to this convenant, hence the Church has continued over the many centuries to pray for the “faithless Jews” because they have not faith in Christ and his everlasting covenant. The only covenant that the Jews can “continue” to be faithful to is the Old because they are not being faithful to the New nor do they have any faith in this only true covenant that is now in effect.

Also notice the following verses you quoted but did not bold face: “In respect to the gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake”
The Jews are not on the side of God right now, as they continue to follow their rabbinical traditions. The Church teaches they need to embrace Christ, who is their Messiah that they rejected.

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. (quoting Psa 118:22)

What on earth does the opinion of some “Haydock” mean to me? I don’t know of Pope by that name. I don’t know of a Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith by that name. I’ve never been under a bishop by the name. I should know better than to enter into disputes with those who don’t seem to trust the Magesterium that the Good Lord gave them. I guess I’m traditional that way, too. But perhaps this is too hasty on my part.

Let me explain how I can reconcile this with considering myself a traditional Catholic. I think we should not ask “are they faithful?”, but knowing that we have been promised not be left orphans, try to stick to Our Lady’s question: “How can this be, since I do not know…?” Perhaps you feel the same way.

Did I say that there is salvation for anyone outside the Church? No! Did St. Paul? No! The immediate question was whether the covenant with the Jews is eternal. How black and white does the answer need to be? If all are to be saved, as St. Paul maintains, then clearly all who do not fall out of Israel are within God’s intention to have full faith, albeit in God’s own time and not ours. For a Jew who does not yet convert to Christ, then, to remain in Israel’s covenant is the equivalent of a drowning man keeping his head above water until he is pulled into the boat. That is worth praying for…and praying thus doesn’t equate with the silly hope that he will tread water for eternity or that he will have a few more gasps than all the others who will eventually drown. If part of Israel will remain outside Christ until all the Gentiles are in, at which time all Israel will be saved, then for that part of Israel their covenant is like a life ring to a drowning man waiting for the rescue boat to come. It is life itself, and no less.

I explained how it is possible to simultaneously pray that Jews remain faithful to their covenant and that they be saved by the Savior of all, Jesus Christ. I thought that was the question: may the two be reconciled? Of course we should investigate these things when they are not clear, that is OK, but I think that clearly, the two can be reconciled.

There is another prayer on Good Friday, after all:

"*For Those Who Do Not Believe in Christ:

Let us pray
For those who do not believe in Christ,
That the light of the Holy Spirit
May show them the way to salvation.

Almighty and eternal God,
Enable those who do not acknowledge Christ
To find the truth
As they walk before you in sincerity of heart.
Help us to grow in love for one another,
To grasp more fully the mystery of your godhead,
And to become more perfect witnesses of your love
In the sight of men.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen*."

This is separate from the prayer for those who do not believe in God, so clearly it applies to those who believe in God, but not in Christ. How does this not apply to the Jews? Of course it does. We single out the Jews from others who know God and not Christ only because of the pre-eminence that the Jews enjoy because of the patriarchs. In other respects, they are like the others, right? Why should they be singled out from among others as faithless, if their lack of entrance into the faith is part of God’s plan to show us mercy? That hardly seems right.

This is the prayer for the Jews, and it does not imply that they do not need Christ…rather, it asks that they continue to grow. Obviously, it does not imply that they have arrived at the fullness of understanding of God’s covenant with them:

"*For the Jewish People:

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.

Almighty and eternal God,
Long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity.
Listen to your Church as we pray
That the people you first made your own
May arrive at the fullness of redemption.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen*."

And let me ask you this…are we so faithful, given the graces we have been given, that we may feel safe standing before God and praying for the “faithless” Jews? Or, given that grace was withheld from them for our sake, will the fidelity and service of the Jews condemn us? Remember the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector. We know which one had the worst acts behind him before walking into the Temple to pray…for outside of God’s mercy, we are all drowning men. So perhaps we would do well not to complain when our liturgies are not harder on others than it is on us. To those whom much is given, much is expected, so we are in the most need of mercy of all.

 

[una_fides]

What on earth does the opinion of some “Haydock” mean to me? I don’t know of Pope by that name. I don’t know of a Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith by that name. I’ve never been under a bishop by the name. I should know better than to enter into disputes with those who don’t seem to trust the Magesterium that the Good Lord gave them. I guess I’m traditional that way, too. But perhaps this is too hasty on my part.

Apparently you are not familiar with Rev. Fr. George Haydock. A quick Google search would have done you well before criticizing his great Catholic commentary, which was a compilation of patristic writings and later biblical scholars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Leo_Haydock#The_Haydock_Bible

So far I’ve presented one Catholic commentary on this biblical passage, while you have presented nothing other than your own private interpretation. You have provided no evidence, no interpretation from any Pope, etc. Also since your writings are not official Magisterium does that mean that we should all here write them off as well? To use your own words, “What on earth does the opinion of some Easter Joy mean to me?” Perhaps you should read his commentary as it at the very least demonstrates how approved theologians have understood these teachings. If I were to cite St. Thomas Aquinas would you say the same about him? I could look up his writings from the Summa if you like. He says the same thing. And St. Thomas’s teachings have received official papal approval and acceptance to the extent that popes have said that to follow his teachings is to never stray from the path of the truth.

And your statement that I do not trust the Magisterium is pure ad hominem. Did I say anything about you not following the infallible Magisterium from the Council of Florence I cited above–yes infallible from a pope not just a priest theologian compiling other orthodox theologians who are faithful to the Magisterium but an actual pope. Please keep the comments relevant. I am doing my best to adhere to the Magisterium while you hurl your groundless insults as if they could possibly stick. A question to ask yourself is whether you are being truly faithful to the Magisterium prior to V2 or whether you think that everything a pope does after the Council is automatically infallible or cannot be called into question. If you search through history, you will find that there was actually a heretical pope named Honorius who was condemned for his heresy by a General Council after his death. I’m not saying that any of the current popes are heretical, but I am saying that they are human and prone to error. They are only infallible in certain special instances, which they rarely invoke. However, what I did cite to you was infallible Magisterium that says that Jews cannot be saved following the Old Covenant and that they must convert to Christ and join his Church to be saved. If a current pope teaches contrary to previously infallibly defined dogmas or tries to interpret them to mean something in a different sense than how the Church had previously understood it, then he is in error. Again if we pray for Jews to remain Jews, then we are praying for their damnation or to follow your analogy we are praying that they drown.

At the very least I hope you will agree with me that the prayer is vague and easily misunderstood and needs to be reworded so that if they are truly praying for the Jews to “grow into understanding and accepting Christ” then they need to come out and say it.

 

[una_fides]

Let me explain how I can reconcile this with considering myself a traditional Catholic. I think we should not ask “are they faithful?”, but knowing that we have been promised not be left orphans, try to stick to Our Lady’s question: “How can this be, since I do not know…?” Perhaps you feel the same way.

Did I say that there is salvation for anyone outside the Church? No! Did St. Paul? No! The immediate question was whether the covenant with the Jews is eternal. How black and white does the answer need to be? If all are to be saved, as St. Paul maintains, then clearly all who do not fall out of Israel are within God’s intention to have full faith, albeit in God’s own time and not ours. For a Jew who does not yet convert to Christ, then, to remain in Israel’s covenant is the equivalent of a drowning man keeping his head above water until he is pulled into the boat. That is worth praying for…and praying thus doesn’t equate with the silly hope that he will tread water for eternity or that he will have a few more gasps than all the others who will eventually drown. If part of Israel will remain outside Christ until all the Gentiles are in, at which time all Israel will be saved, then for that part of Israel their covenant is like a life ring to a drowning man waiting for the rescue boat to come. It is life itself, and no less.

I explained how it is possible to simultaneously pray that Jews remain faithful to their covenant and that they be saved by the Savior of all, Jesus Christ. I thought that was the question: may the two be reconciled? Of course we should investigate these things when they are not clear, that is OK, but I think that clearly, the two can be reconciled.

There is another prayer on Good Friday, after all:

"*For Those Who Do Not Believe in Christ:

Let us pray
For those who do not believe in Christ,
That the light of the Holy Spirit
May show them the way to salvation.

Almighty and eternal God,
Enable those who do not acknowledge Christ
To find the truth
As they walk before you in sincerity of heart.
Help us to grow in love for one another,
To grasp more fully the mystery of your godhead,
And to become more perfect witnesses of your love
In the sight of men.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen*."

This is separate from the prayer for those who do not believe in God, so clearly it applies to those who believe in God, but not in Christ. How does this not apply to the Jews? Of course it does. We single out the Jews from others who know God and not Christ only because of the pre-eminence that the Jews enjoy because of the patriarchs. In other respects, they are like the others, right? Why should they be singled out from among others as faithless, if their lack of entrance into the faith is part of God’s plan to show us mercy? That hardly seems right.

This is the prayer for the Jews, and it does not imply that they do not need Christ…rather, it asks that they continue to grow. Obviously, it does not imply that they have arrived at the fullness of understanding of God’s covenant with them:

"*For the Jewish People:

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.

Almighty and eternal God,
Long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity.
Listen to your Church as we pray
That the people you first made your own
May arrive at the fullness of redemption.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen*."

This second part of your post is much more convincing. In my trying to understand this prayer, I did take into account that following prayer and have even brought it up in discussions I’ve had with others in my attempts to justify the prayer for the Jews. The problem I kept encountering is that the two prayers seem to be saying different things. One prayer is praying that the Jews remain Jews and the next is praying for all who do not believe in Christ to come to the truth. Even the second prayer is not crystal clear in its wording and could be more clearly worded to say that this “truth” to which they are to come is Christ himself. Why not just pray that all men would acknowledge Christ and enter his Church? Again it’s like they are trying to dodge around it without actually saying it. Why? Is there something to be ashamed of? Why change the prayers at all? Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. The Church prays what the Church believes. Did what the Church believes change all of the sudden? If not, why the need to change the prayers? And why change them so that they are vague and can easily be misunderstood?

 

[JReducation]

The prayer was changed because it does not reflect what the Church believes about the Jews. She does not believe that they are faithless. Therefore, the wording of the older prayer was off.

As to the covenant, the teaching of the Church is that the old covenant is fulfilled in the new covenant. This is part of our deposit of faith. There has never been a teaching in the Church that the old covenant was bad or wrong.

The prayer of the Church is that those who follow the old covenant will grow as the covenant intended them to grow. That’s why the prayer asks for the spiritual growth of the Jews. Because if one follows the path of the old covenant, one will eventually discover Jesus Christ, his messianic mission and his Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

I found a Latin translation online!! Here it is: *’’**Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et fidelitate proficere. (Oratio in silentio. Deinde sacerdos:) Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahæ eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiæ tuæ preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen."
*
I will hopefully have a translation by tomorrow. But the troublesome word “continue” is most certainly not present.
**

 

[JReducation]

I found a Latin translation online!! Here it is: *’’**Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et fidelitate proficere. (Oratio in silentio. Deinde sacerdos:) Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahæ eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiæ tuæ preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen."
*
I will hopefully have a translation by tomorrow. But the troublesome word “continue” is most certainly not present.
**

Continue is implied in “proficere”. That form of the verb can be used as an infinitive or a progressive tense in Latin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

The prayer was changed because it does not reflect what the Church believes about the Jews. She does not believe that they are faithless. Therefore, the wording of the older prayer was off.

So the Church has been erroneously praying this way for all those centuries only to realize that she didn’t really believe what she was praying all along? Again, lex orandi lex credendi, the Church has been praying how the Church believes, so if you are saying that the Church does not NOW believe that the Jews are faithless, it cannot be argued that she most certainly used to, as the Traditional version of this age old prayer demonstrates. Thus, you are left to conclude that the Church changed her teachings on the Jews. However, the Church keeps saying that Vatican II did not change her teachings? Which one is it? Did the teaching change or is it the same?

As to the covenant, the teaching of the Church is that the old covenant is fulfilled in the new covenant. This is part of our deposit of faith. There has never been a teaching in the Church that the old covenant was bad or wrong.

The prayer of the Church is that those who follow the old covenant will grow as the covenant intended them to grow. That’s why the prayer asks for the spiritual growth of the Jews. Because if one follows the path of the old covenant, one will eventually discover Jesus Christ, his messianic mission and his Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your thoughts and your reiterations of some of the points that have been raised on this thread. I still think, however, that this theory of the Jews “growing into the New Covenant” fails to take into account the word “continue” in the English translation as well as the fact that Jews that follow their Talmudic Judaism the more they become emerged into that culture and thinking and the less likely they are to embrace Christ. There is no benefit to the Jews to pray they continue to be good Jews who follow their limited revelation mixed in with their “traditions of men” as Christ called them. In fact, as I’ve pointed out from what the Church has infallibly taught, it actually does them eternal harm if they fail to embrace Christ and enter his Church.

 

[una_fides]

Continue is implied in “proficere”. That form of the verb can be used as an infinitive or a progressive tense in Latin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

profic.ere V 3 1 PRES ACTIVE INF 0 X
profic.ere V 3 1 PRES PASSIVE IMP 2 S
proficio, proficere, profeci, profectus V [XXXAX]
make, accomplish, effect;

I think the translation “continue to grow” does not seem to match up with “make, accomplish, effect.” I also do not see a need that the word “continue” be implied or to necessarily understand this in a progressive tense rather than the simple present.

 

[JReducation]

So the Church has been erroneously praying this way for all those centuries only to realize that she didn’t really believe what she was praying all along? Again, lex orandi lex credendi, the Church has been praying how the Church believes, so if you are saying that the Church does not NOW believe that the Jews are faithless, it cannot be argued that she most certainly used to, as the Traditional version of this age old prayer demonstrates. Thus, you are left to conclude that the Church changed her teachings on the Jews. However, the Church keeps saying that Vatican II did not change her teachings? Which one is it? Did the teaching change or is it the same?

Thank you for your thoughts and your reiterations of some of the points that have been raised on this thread. I still think, however, that this theory of the Jews “growing into the New Covenant” fails to take into account the word “continue” in the English translation as well as the fact that Jews that follow their Talmudic Judaism the more they become emerged into that culture and thinking and the less likely they are to embrace Christ. There is no benefit to the Jews to pray they continue to be good Jews who follow their limited revelation mixed in with their “traditions of men” as Christ called them. In fact, as I’ve pointed out from what the Church has infallibly taught, it actually does them eternal harm if they fail to embrace Christ and enter his Church.

Your other choice is to believe that the way the Church prays is heretical.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

You have provided no evidence, no interpretation from any Pope, etc.

Are you implying that I just made that up?

Nostra Aetate was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, and quotes the Scriptures cited, as does Lumen Gentium.

More recently, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has maintained just what I was saying he holds when he changed the Good Friday prayer included in the currently-allowed version of the 1962 Mass. Nobody is saying that the Jews don’t need salvation by Christ! St. Paul didn’t say it, the Popes haven’t said it, and I haven’t, either! The point is that when it comes to blindness and the need for conversion, the Jews needn’t be singled out from others who have not accepted Christ. Rather, we pray for them particularly because of the pre-eminence they enjoy because of the patriarchs (which includes the covenant).

Again: a prayer for the Jews to remain faithful to their covenant is NOT a prayer that they never realize the promises God has made them realized in their fullness!! For is God going to give them any other answer to the “old” covenant than Christ? Of course not! Therefore, the Good Friday prayer is a prayer that they do not lose the truth they have, but by fidelity to what God has given so far be in a position to add to it. The promise by whose fulfillment we are saved is the promise given to the Jews. Christ is the one and only fulfillment of God’s covenant with the Jews. No one has said otherwise. To pray that they remain in the covenant is necessarily to pray that they eventually come to the salvation won by Christ, sent first of all to the Jews.

In reference to the dispositions contained in the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, of July 7, 2007, on the possibility of using the last edition of the Missale Romanum prior to the Vatican II Council, published in 1962 with the authority of Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Father Benedict XVI has ordered that the “Oremus et pro Iudaeis” of the Liturgy of Good Friday in the aforesaid Missale Romanum be replaced with the following text:

Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum. Oremus. Flectamus genua. Levate.
[Translation: Let us pray also for the Jews. May our God and Lord illuminate their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise.]

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
[Translation: Almighty and everlasting God, who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into your Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.]

This text is to be used, beginning in the current year, in all Celebrations of the Liturgy of Good Friday with the aforementioned Missale Romanum.

Commentary by Robert Sungenis:
Pope Benedict XVI has once again acted as a faithful Pontiff of the Catholic Church. The most important dimension of the traditional Latin Mass prayer was the demand for the Jews to recognize Jesus Christ and become saved by Him. This demand was preserved by Pope Benedict XVI. This move is especially significant in light of the fact that many Jewish leaders today claim that the Jews do not need to accept Jesus Christ as He is taught by the Christian faith or that they have their own covenant with God apart from the New Covenant in Jesus Christ and can be saved outside of Christianity.
All the previous descriptions contained in the old Latin Mass prayer of Pope John XXIII that have been eliminated by Pope Benedict XVI (e.g., reference to the “blindness” of the Jews or their living in “darkness”) can be considered superfluous, since: (a) many adjectives and adverbs could be used to describe someone outside the Christian faith but they are not necessary when we are praying for their conversion, and (b) the descriptions of being in “darkness” and “blindness” apply to everyone in the human race who has not received the redemption in Jesus Christ, and thus the Jews are not unique in that aspect.
Although the pope eliminated the word “conversion” from the 1962 missal, it is unmistakable that his reiteration of the “prayer for the Jews,” since it is placed in a context of receiving salvation from Jesus Christ, is making the same demand on the Jews that Catholic tradition has required of them – that their salvation can only come from Jesus Christ and that they must submit to Him in order to become saved.
I would also point out that the pope’s allusion to Romans 11:26: “as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into your Church, all Israel may be saved” from the Latin: “ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat,” does not make the mistake of confining the salvation of “all Israel” to a singular ambiguous event in the future (e.g., an event that occurs, as some erroneously claim, “at the return of Christ”). The pope left the allusion to the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26 as general as the 1994 Catholic Catechism leaves it in Paragraph 674:
“The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by ‘all Israel’….The ‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of ‘the full number of the Gentiles,’ will enable the People of God to achieve the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,’ in which ‘God may be all in all.’”
Hence, both the Latin Mass Prayer for the Jews and the Catholic Catechism leave open the interpretation that “all Israel shall be saved” and does not refer exclusively to an event in the future in which masses of Jews will be saved, but to the fact that “Israel,” the Jews, have been coming into the Church since ancient times, while at the same time, “the fullness of theGentiles,” by the influx of various individuals from the nations into the Catholic Church, has also been occurring. In this way, the “fullness of the Gentiles” and the saving of “all Israel” are presently occurring and both will reach their fruition at the Second Coming of Christ. All the Jews that become saved, from the time of Abraham to the return of Christ, comprise the “all Israel” that will be saved. Our hope, of course, is that there will be many more Jews that will become saved before the coming of Christ.
Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.
February 5, 2008

I don’t have any more patience than anybody else for the “spirit of Vatican II” nonsense that has flown around wreaking havoc for most of my lifetime, but we’re talking about the actual documents of the Council and what the Popes actually have had to say about it in the decades since. That is a horse of a different color.

 

[RyanML]

Your other choice is to believe that the way the Church prays is heretical.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

In my opinion, the new prayer is deficient because it does not clearly express the faith of the Church that Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. It is certainly not heretical but it is ambiguous. I prefer the traditional prayer for its doctrianl clarity. Specifically, I prefer the prayer from the 1962 missal which acknowledges the need for the conversion of the Jewish people to Christ without the polemical language. I also like the recently revised prayer for the 1962 missal which is equally clear:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

 

[Ace86]

In my opinion, the new prayer is deficient because it does not clearly express the faith of the Church that Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. It is certainly not heretical but it is ambiguous. I prefer the traditional prayer for its doctrinal clarity.

Me too. Personally, I like the prayer from before Vatican II, with the word perfidious.

 

[RyanML]

Me too. Personally, I like the prayer from before Vatican II, with the word perfidious.

While I don’t see anything wrong, doctrinally, with using the term perfidious, Pope John XXIII changed it because it was often misunderstood to accuse Jews of maliciousness. I think removing the term brought the focus solely to the Jews coming to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

 

[Ace86]

True, but some of them were and are malicious. Just read the prayers of the Talmud. There are Jews who hate Jesus Christ!

While I don’t see anything wrong, doctrinally, with using the term perfidious, Pope John XXIII changed it because it was often misunderstood to accuse Jews of maliciousness. I think removing the term brought the focus solely to the Jews coming to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.