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

[pickguard1]

Actually, this prayer did not come from Vatican II; it was construed and inserted into the liturgy by Paul VI, so any implications would be on him and not the Council.

By that very fact, it cannot be heretical. The Pope, when promulgating something of faith or morals for all the faithful, which the liturgy of the Roman Rite IS for any and all the faithful (although one may belong to and attend a different rite, the Roman rite is acceptable for any Catholic to attend) he is protected by the charism of infallibility. It would be silly to assume that the Pope could command that all priests of the Roman rite pray something heretical in the Mass every year.

 

[una_fides]

By that very fact, it cannot be heretical. The Pope, when promulgating something of faith or morals for all the faithful, which the liturgy of the Roman Rite IS for any and all the faithful (although one may belong to and attend a different rite, the Roman rite is acceptable for any Catholic to attend) he is protected by the charism of infallibility. It would be silly to assume that the Pope could command that all priests of the Roman rite pray something heretical in the Mass every year.

Papal infallibility does not protect a pope from becomming a heretic as was the case of pope Honorious who was later condemned as a heretic. If a pope were to teach something contrary to the already defined faith he would then become a heretic and antipope and would be condmend as such by a future pope as history has already shown. I’m not wanting to discuss the orthodoxy of Paul VI but rather the specifics of this prayer and how we can understand it. If it’s not heretical, then it should have an explanation in line with what the Chirch has always taught an prayed on this subject.

 

[pickguard1]

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

Here it is (the 2008 revision) from wikipedia:

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

^ Oremus et pro Iudaeis: Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum. (Oremus. Flectamus genua. Levate.) 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.

 

[EasterJoy]

Papal infallibility does not protect a pope from becomming a heretic as was the case of pope Honorious who was later condemned as a heretic. If a pope were to teach something contrary to the already defined faith he would then become a heretic and antipope and would be condmend as such by a future pope as history has already shown. I’m not wanting to discuss the orthodoxy of Paul VI but rather the specifics of this prayer and how we can understand it. If it’s not heretical, then it should have an explanation in line with what the Chirch has always taught an prayed on this subject.

Just like marriages, Popes and what they teach is valid until proven otherwise.

Our present Holy Father and multiple posters on this thread have explained why praying that the Jews remain faithful to their covenant and praying that their eyes be opened to Christ, along with all others who don’t believe in him yet, are not incompatible.

Some possible reasons concerning why the Popes since Pius XII, all Europeans present for World War II and especially the one from Poland and the one from Germany, might understandably view the Jews and their relations with the Church in an entirely different light than their predecessors viewed those relations has also been suggested.

If you wanted to believe that the Good Friday prayers, though they have changed, have never been heretical, you could. It would not be a violation of your intellect. I don’t get the impression that you want to do that. It would seem that you don’t like them, and because of this you want to find something objectively wrong with them, rather than just admitting that according to your opinion they leave much to be desired.

Although some of us are obviously of the opinion that the old prayers would also leave much to be desired, were they to be transported out of their historical context and reinserted into our current liturgy, that’s our opinion, too. We’re just fortunate in liking what we have, instead of what we don’t have. Excepting perhaps for those of us who have decided to like what they get on the principle of giving little quarter to one’s own likes and dislikes when it comes to liturgy, there is no particular virtue in that.

I’m sorry you don’t like the current prayers. I think you’re out of luck, and I think that if you persist in trying to prove them to be heretical, you’re out of luck, there, too.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok…and?

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

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa…nobody called you an anti-semite.

My point is not that ethnic cleansing means more to you than to me, or vice versa. My point is that the Holocaust was in the personal experience of every Pope since Pius XII. That horrific “what, six years?” (and on the ground, it was much longer than that) was among the worst years in the life of every Pope since Pius XII. These were years that totally devastated the world they had grown up in. To you or me, the Holocaust might not be so singular, next to, say, the slaughters perpetuated by Stalin. That’s because we didn’t have to watch either one with our own eyes. Personal experience makes a question into a matter of passion, a matter of emotion, not simply a matter of facts.

Pope John XXIII, then Monsignor Roncalli, personally helped thousands of Jews to escape the Nazis. Likewise, Pope John Paul II has been recognized by groups such as B’nai Brith for his actions in defense of the lives of Polish Jews. Again: he saw what anti-semitism can become, with his own eyes. He battled that particular evil, which you find not outstanding among the evils faced by the Church, at grave risk to his own life. He undoubtedly knew and had played with many of the victims of the Holocaust as a child. These numbers had been his friends and neighbors. He had personally witnessed and even experienced the hatred they endured, sometimes at the hands of fellow practicing Catholics. And wouldn’t the Holocaust affect you differently if you were Pope Benedict XVI, who knows town after town after town in his childhood homeland in which all the Jews are gone, all murdered or fled? Wouldn’t the evil that has come to define your homeland with infamy be something other than just another ethnic cleansing to you? Would that evil be just one evil among many to you, or would it weigh differently upon you? Would “Never again” not have a particular specific meaning to you?

You want to know what changed, why these Popes were different. I ventured a guess. Take it or leave it.

 

[pickguard1]

Papal infallibility does not protect a pope from becomming a heretic as was the case of pope Honorious who was later condemned as a heretic. If a pope were to teach something contrary to the already defined faith he would then become a heretic and antipope and would be condmend as such by a future pope as history has already shown. I’m not wanting to discuss the orthodoxy of Paul VI but rather the specifics of this prayer and how we can understand it. If it’s not heretical, then it should have an explanation in line with what the Chirch has always taught an prayed on this subject.

I would agree that while the language is (probably intentionally) ambiguous, if one wants to know what the message is, one has to look at what the church always has taught. This is that all men must be within the fold of the church to be saved. It is in that light that the prayer has to be interpreted. In that light, one must assume that “continuing to grow in faithfulness” -however roundabout it may be - means reaching the conclusion (as the apostles and so many of the first Jewish Christians did) that Jesus is the Messiah who was foretold by the prophets.

It is unfortunate that the language, if left to private interpretation, is ambiguous enough to lead anyone to think the Church changed is doctrine of justification. BUT, as Catholics, we KNOW that can’t happen, and anyone who says that the doctrine is different is wrong.

 

[JReducation]

I have a couple of thoughts to share. Some are facts and others are my personal opinion. I’ll try to say which is which.

1. It is a fact that the Church often deliberately writes in ambiguity. She does it on purpose. She wants to leave the door open for reflection and for modification with the passing of time. She not only does this with prayers, but also with many writings and other teachings. The rationale is that if you write something so explicitly and so tightly you have greater difficulty in adjusting it and tweeking it for clarity and orthodoxy.

I can offer an example of this that is not liturgical, but equally important. When our order was rewriting its constitutions based on the rule of St. Francis written in 1223 the Holy Father turned them back to us three times because they were too legal. Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II wanted them to be theological exegesis of the rule, rather than regulations that we had to live by. The argument was that unless we understood the theology of St. Francis we could not develop regulations that were appropriate for this era. It took 20 years before we were allowed to re-write the constitutions and include regulations, after the theology was to the satisfaction of the Holy Father and it was followed and interpreted for two decades. As a result, many blessings came forth. As each community studied the theology of the rule, new communities sprang forth from the orignal Franciscan family. Thus the Franciscan family grew and instead of four orders, there are more than 100 today.

There is a benefit to ambiguity. It invites theologians, religious, clergy and laity to reflect and dialogue and eventually things are clarified, understood and applied in light of tradition and the present moment. The idea is to bring both into harmony, better said would be to bring the present moment into harmony with tradition without losing its contemporary character. In other words, we want to be consistent with tradition, but not ignore what is happening in the present either. As other posters have pointed out, we don’t want to ignore the feeling of the Church for the Jews today, while at the same time we want to preserve the teaching of the Church that comes through history.

1. My opinion is that this is actually beneficial. It’s like Pope Benedict always says. Reason and faith must work together. In the past, the emphasis on reason and faith was often lopsided. Some people leaned to far toward reason, to the point of embracing heresy and others leand so far toward faith to embracing heresy as well. A good example of this were some movements such as the Iluminati, the Waldensians, and the Beguinnes. There is a point where you think that you’re leaning so much on faith that you have actually stepped outside of the faith and you’re leaning on personal beliefs. This is not the same as the common faith of the Church.

We have to strike a balance. That balance is only struck when the faith is spoken with the language of reason and reason is enlightened by faith. But this is not something that is done easily nor is it done quickly. This takes time to harmonize. So in the case of the prayers of the liturgy, we have to allow time to harmonize the two, reason and faith. It will happen, if we trust God and trust the Church.

1. Finally, let us remember that our salvation rests not on the words of the prayer, but on the charity with which we pray and carrying out that charity into our daily lives. The saints are wonderful models of this. While they prayed for the conversion of all men, they never denied any man their company, their assistance, their love, their protection, their respect, and their witness. Most of the time their witness was through action, not words. One man that comes to mind is Charles de Facould and another is Maximilian Kolbe.

We have in our Franciscan chronicles letters and testimonies written by Jews who were in prison with St. Maximilian. They describe how St. Maximilian would lead them in the prayers of the Shabbat. He would take the role of the rabbi and would pray the Jewish prayers for leberation and for hope. These testimonies were written up for his canonization process and were approved by the commission as examples of a heroic Christian life and hereoic virtue. A Catholic friar and priest who knew the rites of the Jews and celebrated them was taking his life in his own hands, as if being in prison in a concentration camp was not dangerous enough. Example is the greatest means of reaching sanctification. That is what we should be concerned about, more than the words of a prayer. The words of this particular prayer in no way take away from the sanctity of the Christian man or woman. They are an act of charity and of fraternity.

Blessed John XXIII, as a bishop and cardinal also went among the Jews during the war and he led them in the celebration of the high holy days. He took the role of the rabbi and led them in their prayers for hope and for liberation. He preached to them by example.

There are many ways to deliver the universal call to holiness without the use of language, esepcially language that would make others fear us or misunderstand us and our intention.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

***Okay, I have my own literal translation of the Latin (only subtle difference):

Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et et in sui fœderis fidelitate proficere.

•              *We pray for the Jews, that, to whom the Lord our God previously spoke, he may grant them to make progress in love of his name and in the faithfulness of his covenant.

Can we understand this prayer as saying that it’s praying that the Jews will be faithful to the New Covenant? If they are making progress to me that seems to imply that they are somehow already in process of growing in the faithfulness of God’s covenant. If that’s the case, then the only way I think we could reconcile it would be to somehow say that the Jews are in the old part of God’s covenant and that they will progress into faithfulness to the New Covenant in Christ. I can’t say this prayer is heretical but it is certainly problematic.

Because this prayer is so vague and inexplicit, it can easily be wrongfully understood and interpreted as to mean that the Jews do not need Christ or the New Covenant, and for that reason, the Church should revise this prayer and make it to more clearly portray the Catholic faith. The Church has a responsibility to teach the truth, and if a prayer’s vague wording is easily leading many people astray, then it needs to be clarified. Many people, including bishops, are hearing this prayer and concluding that the Jews do not need Christ and do not need to embrace the New Covenant for salvation, as if their Old Covenant were salvific. As a result, they tell Jews and others who tell Jews that the Catholic Church teaches that they are alright being good Jews and following their Jewish religion and that they’ll still be saved as long as they remain good Jews. What if just one person who would have possibly converted to the Catholic faith had he been warned that he needed Christ for salvation because he heard this false message decided to instead continue being a Jew and as a result he remained outside the Church and apart from her saving sacraments. If just one soul is lost as a result, what a travesty and a disservice would be done for this Jew. When we multiply that by the many laymen, priests, and bishops that are teaching this false doctrine to many Jews, imagine the loss of potential souls for Christ. Read again my post about God appointing us as watchmen to warn the people and what happens to those who do not warn of the impending doom. The prayer is quite problematic in its vague wording, and the Church needs to revise it for the sake of the Jews in their best interest.

 

[JReducation]

***Okay, I have my own literal translation of the Latin (only subtle difference):

Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et et in sui fœderis fidelitate proficere.*

              *We pray for the Jews, that, to whom the Lord our God previously spoke, he may grant them to make progress in love of his name and in the faithfulness of his covenant.

Can we understand this prayer as saying that it’s praying that the Jews will be faithful to the New Covenant? If they are making progress to me that seems to imply that they are somehow already in process of growing in the faithfulness of God’s covenant. If that’s the case, then the only way I think we could reconcile it would be to somehow say that the Jews are in the old part of God’s covenant and that they will progress into faithfulness to the New Covenant in Christ. I can’t say this prayer is heretical but it is certainly problematic.

Because this prayer is so vague and inexplicit, it can easily be wrongfully understood and interpreted as to mean that the Jews do not need Christ or the New Covenant, and for that reason, the Church should revise this prayer and make it to more clearly portray the Catholic faith. The Church has a responsibility to teach the truth, and if a prayer’s vague wording is easily leading many people astray, then it needs to be clarified. Many people, including bishops, are hearing this prayer and concluding that the Jews do not need Christ and do not need to embrace the New Covenant for salvation, as if their Old Covenant were salvific. As a result, they tell Jews and others who tell Jews that the Catholic Church teaches that they are alright being good Jews and following their Jewish religion and that they’ll still be saved as long as they remain good Jews. What if just one person who would have possibly converted to the Catholic faith had he been warned that he needed Christ for salvation because he heard this false message decided to instead continue being a Jew and as a result he remained outside the Church and apart from her saving sacraments. If just one soul is lost as a result, what a travesty and a disservice would be done for this Jew. When we multiply that by the many laymen, priests, and bishops that are teaching this false doctrine to many Jews, imagine the loss of potential souls for Christ. Read again my post about God appointing us as watchmen to warn the people and what happens to those who do not warn of the impending doom. The prayer is quite problematic in its vague wording, and the Church needs to revise it for the sake of the Jews in their best interest.

The issue is that the Church does not want to take the abstractness out of this prayer for a reason. The Church’s understanding of the relationship between the Jews and the Church is that it is different from the relationship between other faith and the Church. The Church believes that the Jews are part of our tradition and therefore are not abandoned by Christ, but somehow, though some mysterioius way that we do not understand or know, Christ finds the means to save the Jews in their current situation. The Church realizes that they do not have the fulness of truth, but this does not deprive them from the mercy of God as they remain the original chosen people. That status has not changed, because God does not retract his promises, which is also a Church teaching.

Therefore, the Church believes that despite the imperfect union between Judaism and the Church, there is some kind of union through which the grace of Christ operates and that we must therefore be patient and wait for God to work out this conversion of the people of Israel, while we continue to witness to them through our faith and our charity.

One thing that John Paul II made very clear and Pope Benedict seems to be making very clear is that there is a bond between the Church and the Jews. They are not out there alone. When you have popes who pray at synagogues, who praise those Jews who died for their faith, then you have to trust that God is at work here.

There was an interesting program tonight on EWTN with Fr. Mitch Pacwa and a Dominican Friar who is the head of the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC. I can’t recall his name. He was asked a question about Protestant martyrs. His answer was very simple and clear. I think it applies to the Jewish martyrs as well. He said that anyone who dies for his faith in God is a martyr and is in heaven. He quoted from something that the Church has said about martyrdom. He explained that the only reason why we cannot canonize them is because it would be offensive to other ecclesial communions to invade them and use their martyrs for our religious purposes and thus the Church refrains from canonizing them, but she does acknowledg that they are true martyrs and as martyrs they have earned heaven.

I thought this was very interesting and filled me with great hope for those Jews who died in the Shoah for their faith. We don’t have to panic over the souls of Jews being lost, if they are truly living their faith. God will find a way to save them. In the meantime, we must pray that they, like many other people, will come to the fulness of truth. Even Catholics are often not in the fulness of truth. We have to pray for everyone who is not there yet and worry not about God’s mercy for those who do what they can with what they have.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

I have a couple of thoughts to share. Some are facts and others are my personal opinion. I’ll try to say which is which…

There is a benefit to ambiguity…

There are many ways to deliver the universal call to holiness without the use of language, esepcially language that would make others fear us or misunderstand us and our intention.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That was a great post, in its entirety.

I think the truth, even though (and perhaps because) it is an objective reality, is too big to be fully captured in words, particularly words without ambiguity or paradox. This, I think, is why Sola Scriptura could not work, even if the Scriptures themselves were not full of ambiguity or paradox. The Holy Spirit did not give us a straightforward and unambiguous instruction manual because the truth is not that small. Formulas and laws help to describe it, are perhaps indespensible in describing it, but the truth cannot be contained in a formula. Our faith is handed on, then, not by the written word alone, but by the living, because the truth is something that has to be lived in order to be known. That is because the truth is also a living thing, the life of God Himself, and not an abstraction.

 

[pickguard1]

Very good post Brother JR,

There are definitely places where ambiguity serves an important purpose. I have to say though, that for this subject (the prayer for the Jews during Good Friday services) needn’t be one of them. It’s perfectly OK to change the wording if at some point the words used have taken on a different connotation or nuance from what the original writers intended. However, I have to agree with Una Fides that the original change for the Ordinary Form Mass seems to have gone beyond just reworking offensive language and made the issue very ambiguous for any non-catholics. Of course, Catholics should know that our doctrine on salvation can never change, so the new prayer must obviously still, in some way, convey the same doctrine the Church has always taught. But for non-catholics who often don’t perceive the immutability of the Church’s doctrine, this could be one of the items that could be seen (through a false misinterpretation) to prove that they do change.

I feel that the wording in the newest revision (2008) which has been posted in this thread adequately addresses the problematic language of the original changes, and I don’t see how the current revision shouldn’t have been how the prayer was originally changed in the first place.

Nonetheless, any Catholic should know that the changing of the words ultimately can have no bearing on the Church’s doctrine.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

No I am not intending to be silly. It’s just that statements like that (and I sincerely apologize if I misread your statements) make me wonder. You say that so many Popes confirmed a teaching but the recent Popes have had a hard time teaching what you know has not changed. It just gives me the impression that you are judging the Popes and know better than them. Again, sorry if I misunderstand you, but I can only go by what you write here. Are the last 5 Popes deficient in their teaching of doctrine or not?

 

[JReducation]

Whoah!

The prayer for the Jews is not doctrine or dogma. Let’s not make that mistake. Prayers reflect our faith; therefore, they reflect doctrine and dogma, but they are not doctrine or dogma in themselves. Therefore, any pope can change the words of any prayer as long as they do not conflict with doctrine or dogma. The new form is not in conflict with doctrine or dogma.

The whole issue about the previous popes does not hold water. Any pope could have changed those words. as long as they do not contradict the teaching of the Church. We can say that the words are ambiguous, that they are not as beautiful or as meaningful or whatever. But we cannot say that the prayers are teachings. They are not. They are prayers. There is a difference between a prayer and a teaching. I’m speaking from professional experience, having taught mystical theology for many years, I know the difference between prayer and teaching. Let’s not mislead people here. That’s not right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

The issue is that the Church does not want to take the abstractness out of this prayer for a reason.

For what reason would the Church have to be ambiguous about a teaching that has already been settled? The new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Traditional Mass liturgy clearly explains that they are praying that the Jews embrace Jesus as the Messiah. As a result, the Jews explained their shock and horror that the Church would actually pray for this to occur. They sincerely believed that the prayer in the Novus Ordo liturgy was basically saying they were okay where they were and did not need Christ. If people are walking away with that understanding, you cannot deny that there is a serious problem.

The Church believes that the Jews are part of our tradition and therefore are not abandoned by Christ,

They are a part of the precursor to our faith. Their entire religion before Christ was designed to point to the fulfillment in Him and His perfect sacrifice that would bring about the possibility for their salvation through Him and the means He has established for obtaining His saving grace.

but somehow, though some mysterioius way that we do not understand or know, Christ finds the means to save the Jews in their current situation.

What is this “mysterious means” by which Christ saves the Jews “in their current situation”? Do you have any divine revelation or past teachings of the Church to support such an idea? Again, here is the Church’s infallible definition concerning the spiritual state of those who have not entered the Church (and note that it states that Jews along with heretics, etc are not inside the Church):

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
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 the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, 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.

Vatican I infallibly defined that this teaching along with all the Church’s other defined teachings must be understood in the same sense (in eodem sensu) and with the same meaning as the Church has always understood it. Here is a page with a compilation of the Church’s teachings on this matter that can help for those interested to read more on what the Church has always taught on this subject: no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/

There was an interesting program tonight on EWTN with Fr. Mitch Pacwa and a Dominican Friar who is the head of the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC. I can’t recall his name. He was asked a question about Protestant martyrs. His answer was very simple and clear. I think it applies to the Jewish martyrs as well. He said that anyone who dies for his faith in God is a martyr and is in heaven.

Perhaps he should read the above infallible teaching that even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ that it will profit them nothing if they are outside the Church.

We don’t have to panic over the souls of Jews being lost, if they are truly living their faith. God will find a way to save them.

Christ taught that there are only “few” who are saved. He said that “many are called” but only “few are chosen.” We know definitively and from the definition of the word itself that “few” means the minority. That blog I posted earlier also has a compilation of the Church’s teachings on few saved as well as the constant understanding of theologians and the doctors of the Church throughout the centuries. If only few are saved, as Christ clearly taught, then we must be concerned not only with the Jews but with everyone. And nowhere in the history of the teachings of the Catholic Church will you find them saying that Jews will be saved in their false faith that denies Christ as long as morality is maintained. At some point, they would have been guilty of a grave sin in their souls and would be lost because they do not have a way to obtain forgiveness for these sins, and we have no revelation that says they can.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832:
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”(Ephesians 4,5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” (Luke 11,23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” (Symbol of Saint Athanasius) (…) This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say (Epistle 166)”
ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm

I can see our conversation now getting off the topic of the Jews and this prayer. Perhaps we can save the rest of our dialogue on this issue of No Salvation Outside the Church for another thread on this specific topic.

 

[EasterJoy]

For what reason would the Church have to be ambiguous about a teaching that has already been settled? The new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Traditional Mass liturgy clearly explains that they are praying that the Jews embrace Jesus as the Messiah. As a result, the Jews explained their shock and horror that the Church would actually pray for this to occur. They sincerely believed that the prayer in the Novus Ordo liturgy was basically saying they were okay where they were and did not need Christ. If people are walking away with that understanding, you cannot deny that there is a serious problem.

They are a part of the precursor to our faith. Their entire religion before Christ was designed to point to the fulfillment in Him and His perfect sacrifice that would bring about the possibility for their salvation through Him and the means He has established for obtaining His saving grace.

What is this “mysterious means” by which Christ saves the Jews “in their current situation”? Do you have any divine revelation or past teachings of the Church to support such an idea? Again, here is the Church’s infallible definition concerning the spiritual state of those who have not entered the Church (and note that it states that Jews along with heretics, etc are not inside the Church):

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) [Etc.]…

I can see our conversation now getting off the topic of the Jews and this prayer. Perhaps we can save the rest of our dialogue on this issue of No Salvation Outside the Church for another thread on this specific topic.

You don’t like the concept of “mysterious means”, but when we quote a Scripture passage that literally says, “Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, lest you be conceited…” (from Romans 11:25), a passage whose meaning in support of the Good Friday prayer was put forth not by one of us, but by the Popes and the rest of the Magesterium, you won’t accept it. You don’t accept that as proof, presumably because you have accepted a doctrine invented in the last 40 years that says that you don’t have to listen to the Pope that the Lord gave you, if you can only find a Pope since Peter who wrote something that can be interpreted in a way that is more to your liking. You don’t like what 3-4 different Supreme Pontiffs have agreed about over 30 or 40 years, so you make them all out to be some sort of modern-day Pope Honorius (who, coincidentally, was attacked for a letter, not an encylical, and one that does not parallel this case at all)? What is your evidence for doing that? You don’t have precedent or infallible teaching to be doing that, count on it.

Forgive me, but it appears that you just do not want to admit there can possibly be a way of looking at this other than your own personal interpretation. You don’t see a reason for ambiguity, and seem to think that the Pope is objectively wrong if he promulgates a liturgy that contains ambiguity within it, even though you and I both know that there is no age-old infallible teaching (the coin of your realm, I guess) that puts any such restrictions on the Pope.

Why don’t you just admit that you are your own final authority when it comes to liturgy, since with 2,000 years of documentation fully accessible to your personal interpretation, you have no real need for a Pope at all until such a day that one is elected with whom you can agree, and have it done with?

Otherwise, just admit it that the present Good Friday prayer, though not objectively heretical and fully within the Pope’s right to promugate liturgy, is unacceptable to you because you personally don’t like what you percieve to be excessive ambiguity. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, too. Just don’t try to hitch that wagon to someone else’s infallibility. It isn’t going to travel.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

You don’t like the concept of “mysterious means”, but when we quote a Scripture passage that literally says, “Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, lest you be conceited…” (from Romans 11:25), a passage whose meaning in support of the Good Friday prayer was put forth not by one of us, but by the Popes and the rest of the Magesterium, you won’t accept it. You don’t accept that as proof, presumably because you have accepted a doctrine invented in the last 40 years that says that you don’t have to listen to the Pope that the Lord gave you, if you can only find a Pope since Peter who wrote something that can be interpreted in a way that is more to your liking. You don’t like what 3-4 different Supreme Pontiffs have agreed about over 30 or 40 years, so you make them all out to be some sort of modern-day Pope Honorius (who, coincidentally, was attacked for a letter, not an encylical, and one that does not parallel this case at all)? What is your evidence for doing that? You don’t have precedent or infallible teaching to be doing that, count on it.

Forgive me, but it appears that you just do not want to admit there can possibly be a way of looking at this other than your own personal interpretation. You don’t see a reason for ambiguity, and seem to think that the Pope is objectively wrong if he promulgates a liturgy that contains ambiguity within it, even though you and I both know that there is no age-old infallible teaching (the coin of your realm, I guess) that puts any such restrictions on the Pope.

Why don’t you just admit that you are your own final authority when it comes to liturgy, since with 2,000 years of documentation fully accessible to your personal interpretation, you have no real need for a Pope at all until such a day that one is elected with whom you can agree, and have it done with?

Otherwise, just admit it that the present Good Friday prayer, though not objectively heretical and fully within the Pope’s right to promugate liturgy, is unacceptable to you because you personally don’t like what you percieve to be excessive ambiguity. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, too. Just don’t try to hitch that wagon to someone else’s infallibility. It isn’t going to travel.

That is the problem, “in the same sense” is being used to get to a legalism that denotes a return to the 613 Pharisaical laws for salvation. It seems to say that f this is followed by the faithful, we know exactly what we need to do for salvation and we can know we are saved, making our path a sure one based on doctrine.

The teachings of the Church to me lead me to the mystery of sanctifying grace and not as a set of laws some of which are clearly being used in a sense that lacks charity. There is absolutely a narrow road, a defined doctrine, and there is a false caricature of faith that is the result of not doing the Will of the Father but our own will.

The narrow road is a spiritual path that defines our actions in accordance with God’s revelation. The defined doctrine is that which keeps us from being fooled by a false spirit, even our own spirit. Doing the Will of the Father is so much more than doctrine as if we could look in a book and find what we are to do in a particular situation. This is the book that is being written by those who seemingly don’t trust the metaphysical but rely solely on the temporal sense of what the words of doctrine mean. It is leading to a very narrow definition of Catholic Christianity that replaces the mystical “Union with God” with doctrine as its heart and soul.

 

[JReducation]

For what reason would the Church have to be ambiguous about a teaching that has already been settled? The new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Traditional Mass liturgy clearly explains that they are praying that the Jews embrace Jesus as the Messiah. As a result, the Jews explained their shock and horror that the Church would actually pray for this to occur. They sincerely believed that the prayer in the Novus Ordo liturgy was basically saying they were okay where they were and did not need Christ. If people are walking away with that understanding, you cannot deny that there is a serious problem.

Deleted for space

What is this “mysterious means” by which Christ saves the Jews “in their current situation”? Do you have any divine revelation or past teachings of the Church to support such an idea? Again, here is the Church’s infallible definition concerning the spiritual state of those who have not entered the Church (and note that it states that Jews along with heretics, etc are not inside the Church):

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
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 the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, 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.

Vatican I infallibly defined that this teaching along with all the Church’s other defined teachings must be understood in the same sense (in eodem sensu) and with the same meaning as the Church has always understood it. Here is a page with a compilation of the Church’s teachings on this matter that can help for those interested to read more on what the Church has always taught on this subject: no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/

Perhaps he should read the above infallible teaching that even if they shed their blood in the name of Christ that it will profit them nothing if they are outside the Church.

Deleted for space

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 15 August 1832:
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”(Ephesians 4,5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” (Luke 11,23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” (Symbol of Saint Athanasius) (…) This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say (Epistle 166)”
ewtn.com/library/encyc/g16mirar.htm

I can see our conversation now getting off the topic of the Jews and this prayer. Perhaps we can save the rest of our dialogue on this issue of No Salvation Outside the Church for another thread on this specific topic.

You do realize that neither the Council of Florence nor Poe Gregory vested these statements with infalibility, right? These were theological and pastoral statements that any future pope could restate. The only part that is considered infallible is “no salvation outside the Church” because it comes from scripture itself.

However, you ask if I have any revelation as to how Jesus will save the Jews through some mysterious way. I can answer this. If it is a mystery, then no one has any idea how. Secondly, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” made this statement about non Catholics. This stands as the current teaching of the Church until it is changed by another pope or another council.

These are not doctrines, but they are well thought out theological positions. We don’t have to understand them, unless you’re a theologian or want to be. This responds to your question as to why would the Church be deliberately ambiguous. There are times when the Church does not want to commit itself to a position without giving it enough time to mature and enough time for theologians to examine it and discuss it.

It sounds as if you have an interest in theology. I would suggest that you take a few courses in philosophy: logic, metaphysics, and ethics. Then I would suggest that you follow them up with courses in systematic theology, Christology, ecclesiology, liturgy and sacraments and maybe one on mystical theology. These are not enough for a degree, but they are the basis of a good theological education. I have made this suggestion to other lay people on CAF and elseshere and they have really enjoyed this kind of study. I don’t know if you have access to a school of theology or seminars through your diocese. But if you do, try it. You ma really enjoy it. It sounds like you like the discipline of theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Walking_Home]

Pope Benedict XVI —Christ and the Church

In choosing the Twelve, introducing them into a communion of life with himself and involving them in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom in words and works (cf. Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-8; Lk 9: 1-6; 6: 13), Jesus wants to say that the definitive time has arrived in which to constitute the new People of God, the people of the 12 tribes, which now becomes a universal people, his Church.

Appeal for Israel

**With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. **The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.

In this light, one understands how the Risen One confers upon them, with the effusion of the Spirit, the power to forgive sins (cf. Jn 20: 23). Thus, the Twelve Apostles are the most evident sign of Jesus’ will regarding the existence and mission of his Church, the guarantee that between Christ and the Church there is no opposition: despite the sins of the people who make up the Church, they are inseparable.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

 

[Walking_Home]

You do realize that neither the Council of Florence nor Poe Gregory vested these statements with infalibility, right? These were theological and pastoral statements that any future pope could restate. The only part that is considered infallible is “no salvation outside the Church” because it comes from scripture itself.

However, you ask if I have any revelation as to how Jesus will save the Jews through some mysterious way. I can answer this. If it is a mystery, then no one has any idea how. Secondly, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” made this statement about non Catholics. This stands as the current teaching of the Church until it is changed by another pope or another council.

These are not doctrines, but they are well thought out theological positions. We don’t have to understand them, unless you’re a theologian or want to be. This responds to your question as to why would the Church be deliberately ambiguous. There are times when the Church does not want to commit itself to a position without giving it enough time to mature and enough time for theologians to examine it and discuss it.

It sounds as if you have an interest in theology. I would suggest that you take a few courses in philosophy: logic, metaphysics, and ethics. Then I would suggest that you follow them up with courses in systematic theology, Christology, ecclesiology, liturgy and sacraments and maybe one on mystical theology. These are not enough for a degree, but they are the basis of a good theological education. I have made this suggestion to other lay people on CAF and elseshere and they have really enjoyed this kind of study. I don’t know if you have access to a school of theology or seminars through your diocese. But if you do, try it. You ma really enjoy it. It sounds like you like the discipline of theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

---

The passage of time does not change the teaching --no salvation outside the Church. Nor does it change the defense against errors that attack this teaching when the same type of errors arise in later generations.

 

[JReducation]

---

The passage of time does not change the teaching --no salvation outside the Church. Nor does it change the defense against errors that attack this teaching when the same type of errors arise in later generations.

I agree. No one has said anything different, not even John Paul II. What he said was that through some mysterious act of grace, the Jewish people are still connected to the Church so that salvation does come through the Church and does reach them, even in their current imperfect state. He did not change the dogma. He explained it more clearly. What he wrote in a different way of understanding this great truth about salvation within the Church.

2. No one is unaware of the challenge which all this poses to believers. They cannot fail to meet this challenge. Indeed, how could they refuse to do everything possible, with God’s help, to break down the walls of division and distrust, to overcome obstacles and prejudices which thwart the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation in the Cross of Jesus, the one Redeemer of man, of every individual?

"the Church is not a reality closed in on herself. Rather, she is permanently open to missionary and ecumenical endeavour, for she is sent to the world to announce and witness, to make present and spread the mystery of communion which is essential to her, and to gather all people and all things into Christ, so as to be for all an ‘inseparable sacrament of unity’ ".

**Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.

To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. **

These are points that Jon Paul II made claer in Ut Unum Sint.

Now there is another area that has to be attended to by us Catholics. I found this simple but helpful summary on CAF.

**Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.**

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

These are worth reading, because they are very helpful.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF