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

[JReducation]

Can you point out where the above explicitly say that Jews are members of the Church?

The above proposition has been condemned several times by the Ordinary and Infallible Magisterium.

Same as above. Condemned.

Umm, what? The Church hierarchy has failed in its mission then. This is exactly why the SSPX disobeys. Because a hierarchy that fails to repeat the Sacred Dogmata or attempts to imbue Sacred Dogmata with liberalism and modernism, or even attempts to change Sacred Dogmata (which is physically impossible) should be disobeyed (and this includes an attempted ecclesiology which contradicts Dogma). And that is the unanimous teaching of Saints, Popes, and theologians.

The Church has not demanded such a thing.

If you’re not going to read the documents, I can’t help you. I can help you if you read them and you bring your questions to the table. But if you insist on reading only what was written before Vatican II and not reading what was written at the Council and by the popes thereafter, how are you going to learn how the entire puzzle fits together?

We have to be gentle here and believe that no Council and no pope has tried to commit heresy or undermine the traditional teachings of the Church. We have to believe that they are trying their best to help apply these in an expanded ecclesiology. This may have been condemned by one or more popes. But that fact does not bind future popes. Condemnations only bind if they are ex-Cathedra. There are very few things that popes have declared ex-Cathedra. There is a misunderstanding of that power and how it is used. Many of these condemnations were part of the ordinary teaching magisterium and they had to be obeyed, until they were rescinded or redifined by a future pope.

I’ll give you a simple exmaple. Take an exncyclical. When the rule of our order was approved in 1209, it was approved in an encyclical by Pope Innocent III. Later another encyclical was issued by Pope Honorius in 1223. Later another encyclical was issued by Pope Nicholas IV in the late 1200s. The Pope Leo XIII issued another enclycal. In all of these encyclicals the popes proclaimed that the Rule of St. Francis could not be changed by either the Friars in a general chapter or by the Superior General. They prolcaimed, decreed and affirmed that the Rule of St. Francis was given by the Holy Spirit to the Church as it is and cannot be changed.

Well, Pope Paul VI came around and said, that the Rule could be changed by another pope, because the decrees, bulls and proclamations of the previous popes were not binding on the currently reigning Pontiff. So he opened the rule and rewrote the part of the rule that speaks about the Secular Franciscans, leaving intact the part of the rule that governs the friars, but completely rewriting, by his own hand, the part that governs the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. He proclaimed, decreed and affirmed in an encyclical that ths is the rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance and that his interpretation is binding on the Brothers and Sisters of Penance and that all previous decrees were hereby abrogated.

The point I’m making is that if you observe the langauge, it is the same as when a pope declares a dogma, but it does not mean that everytime a pope uses this language he is proclaiming a dogma. A rule of life is not a dogma. It is a discipline. The same can be said about many other things that have been said.

For this reason, you have to read the conciliar documents and post conciliar documents and then bring to the table your questions about them, just as the Brothers and Sisters of Peance read their new rule and bring questoins to the table about their rule and how it follows the rule that was 750 years old and proclaimed by several popes to be unchangeable. But they are learning about their way of life, by asking questions not about what was previously written. They knew that and they understood that. They needed to understand what was written today and how to tie it in with what they had always held as sacred for over 750 years.

This is the way that we must read the newer documents. We must ask questions about the parts that we don’t understand or that appear to be conflictive. Then, those of us who are a little knowledgeable can explain them. I would be more than willing to answer as many questions as I can. If I don’t now the answer, I can point you to where you can find the answer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JoeBrown]

This is absolutely NOT a change in teaching. Now if the Church were to have previously taught that the Spirit ONLY proceeds from the Father and NOT the Son then that would have been a change in teaching. But that was not the case. The Church drew from the sacred deposit of divine revelation to define that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To say that the Church did not receive this teaching from sacred Tradition but instead changed her already defined teaching to mean something different is tantamount to heresy.

Any other examples? Isn’t it interesting that for 2000 years the Church teaches the same constant dogmas and only develops her Tradition in the same sense without change? In fact in Vatican I she infallibly defined that her dogmas cannot change or even be understood in a different sense than as always before. But now you are claiming this same Church is falling into the heresy of applying different understandings to defined dogmas for which then her current leaders would be guilty of heresy and would be anathema. Do you see the problem? Either you interpret her new vague teachings in the same sense as the previous ones or you are left with a Church run by heretics. That situation occurred before during the Arian crisis in which the majority of the bishops in the world were heretics. I on the other hand do not think that current popes are changing the past teachings. I just think their writings are often vague and consequently can be misleading such as the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer.

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

 

[JReducation]

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

It’s not that they were not saved before and are now saved after Vatican II. It is that the Church has looked at herself and sees her presence in these other faiths. She realizes that her truth saves and that Christ uses these truths to save, through her. So there is no break with traditional dogma. Salvation comes through the Catholic Church. What is new in the language is that the Catholic Church has two levels. It is a physical church, meaning that it is an actual entity. But it is more than that. It is a body in which the fulness of truth subsides. All truth subsides only in the Catholic Church.

Therefore, where ever you run into any of these truths, the only logical explanation is that the Church is spiritually present there. There is no other way that these truths could be there, without the Church’s presence. Therefore, the Church’s presence is the saving presence for those who are not Catholic. If they observe these truths, even if it is only some of the whole body of truths, Christ can use them to save souls.

It’s not a matter of being a good Protestant or a good Jew. It is a matter of fidelity to the truths that you have access to. If you are faithful to them, you are being faithful to the Church, even though you are no in full communion with her. This is a very powerful statement about the miracle that is the Church. It says that the Church lives in perfect unbroken communion even in hiding under some of the mish-mash of other faiths. This does not apply to the Orthodox. The Orthdox do have apostolic succession. Therefore, they do have communion in sacris with us. They are our sister Churches, with a capital C.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I suspect that those whose desire is to prove that the Catholic Church has ceased to be the Catholic Church don’t have an interest in reading the documents and pronouncements of the Church during and following Vatican II. Too sad.

 

[JReducation]

I suspect that those whose desire is to prove that the Catholic Church has ceased to be the Catholic Church don’t have an interest in reading the documents and pronouncements of the Church during and following Vatican II. Too sad.

The reality is, as the Holy Father said when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops, the Church did not stop at 1963. While we have to preserve and study what came before us, we also have to live in the Church of today. There is no way that we can ignore what the Church is saying to us today. Well, I shouldn’t say that. I guess a person can ignore anything and pretend it’s not there until they convince themselves that it’s not. But normal people can’t ignore the present.

If one has a problem with the way something is worded or taught by the Church today, one has an obligation to study what is said today. By looking back at what was said several hundred years ago, you are not going to get a clarification of today’s statements. Those statements of yesteryear are not going to clarify the statements of today, because those Fathers did not make these statements and did not forsee them. For this reason, I always say, read the documents of today and read their references and you’ll see the connections.

Father Mitch Pacwa made an interesting comment tonight. He was talking about the priesthood and someone asked about the laity and their relationship to the clergy. I was actually surprised at his bluntness. He usually tends to be very gentle. But he said that the laity is not the clergy and the role of the laity is to bring others to the faith, not to run the Church or tell the Church what she can and cannot do. He went on to say that this attitude that the laity has a voice in everything that the clergy says and does is an import from Protestantism. He proceeded to back it up by giving some Lutheran history.

It made me think about some of these threads, because some lay people are not simply asking to understand, but are demanding that the Church say what they believe she should say. That’s not right or fair. The Church is too large and the sacramental system does not allow for a democratic system.

My point is that we can ask questions and we can study the documents, but at some point we have to give assent, even to ordinary teachings. Otherwise, we will not have the unity for which we pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SemperFidelis]

If you’re not going to read the documents, I can’t help you. I can help you if you read them and you bring your questions to the table. But if you insist on reading only what was written before Vatican II and not reading what was written at the Council and by the popes thereafter, how are you going to learn how the entire puzzle fits together?

I have read Nostra Aetate many times. I will pose the question again: Where does Nostra Aetate say that Jews are members of the Church?

*I’ll give you a simple exmaple. Take an exncyclical. When the rule of our order was approved in 1209, it was approved in an encyclical by Pope Innocent III. Later another encyclical was issued by Pope Honorius in 1223. Later another encyclical was issued by Pope Nicholas IV in the late 1200s. The Pope Leo XIII issued another enclycal. In all of these encyclicals the popes proclaimed that the Rule of St. Francis could not be changed by either the Friars in a general chapter or by the Superior General. They prolcaimed, decreed and affirmed that the Rule of St. Francis was given by the Holy Spirit to the Church as it is and cannot be changed.

Well, Pope Paul VI came around and said, that the Rule could be changed by another pope, because the decrees, bulls and proclamations of the previous popes were not binding on the currently reigning Pontiff. So he opened the rule and rewrote the part of the rule that speaks about the Secular Franciscans, leaving intact the part of the rule that governs the friars, but completely rewriting, by his own hand, the part that governs the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. He proclaimed, decreed and affirmed in an encyclical that ths is the rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance and that his interpretation is binding on the Brothers and Sisters of Penance and that all previous decrees were hereby abrogated.

The point I’m making is that if you observe the langauge, it is the same as when a pope declares a dogma, but it does not mean that everytime a pope uses this language he is proclaiming a dogma. A rule of life is not a dogma. It is a discipline. The same can be said about many other things that have been said.

For this reason, you have to read the conciliar documents and post conciliar documents and then bring to the table your questions about them, just as the Brothers and Sisters of Peance read their new rule and bring questoins to the table about their rule and how it follows the rule that was 750 years old and proclaimed by several popes to be unchangeable. But they are learning about their way of life, by asking questions not about what was previously written. They knew that and they understood that. They needed to understand what was written today and how to tie it in with what they had always held as sacred for over 750 years.

This is the way that we must read the newer documents. We must ask questions about the parts that we don’t understand or that appear to be conflictive. Then, those of us who are a little knowledgeable can explain them. I would be more than willing to answer as many questions as I can. If I don’t now the answer, I can point you to where you can find the answer.*

Apples and oranges. What you have described above can indeed be a considered a change in discipline. Saying that the Church has gone from “Jews are outside the Church” to “Jews are inside the Church” would not be a matter of discipline. Dogma, pure and simple.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have read Nostra Aetate many times. I will pose the question again: Where does Nostra Aetate say that Jews are members of the Church?

It doesn’t. I don’t think anyone here said it did. As I understand what Br JR was pointing out is that Nostra Aetate does say there is a connection between the Jews and the Church.

Saying, simply, “Jews are outside the Church” with no further clarification is an inadequate explanation of Church teaching.

 

[JReducation]

I have read Nostra Aetate many times. I will pose the question again: Where does Nostra Aetate say that Jews are members of the Church?

Apples and oranges. What you have described above can indeed be a considered a change in discipline. Saying that the Church has gone from “Jews are outside the Church” to “Jews are inside the Church” would not be a matter of discipline. Dogma, pure and simple.

The question is not whether the Jews are within the physical Church, we know that is not the case. The question is whether they are united to the Church. This is what Nostra Aetate has to say about this.

Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.

I think I posted the rest of this on #234. I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[gentle_atheist]

So what, exactly, are Catholics praying for?

“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.”

Sounds to me like Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

 

[Shin]

Which God I might add, has demonstrated his lack of favor of quite emphatically, with fire and brimstone.

 

[SHW]

So what, exactly, are Catholics praying for?

“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.”

Sounds to me like Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices.

There is only one covenant in force right now; it is called the New Covenant. When Jesus made His New Covenant, the Old Covenant became obsolete. The Church is actually praying for the Jews for faithfulness to His/Jesus’/God’s New Covenant. Hopefully, they will continue to grow in love of His name and knowledge of Him, and as a result, accept His New Covenant. (Jews probably take this prayer to mean their own Old Covenant, that is their prerogative to do so. However, God knows what the Church is actually praying for!) The Old Covenant is obsolete and will never be in force ever again. Jesus provided the perfect (New) Covenant and it cannot be improved upon. It is an everlasting covenant because Jesus will never break it. He is the testator of it.

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Hebrews 9:15-17
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Old Covenant is obsolete and will never be in force ever again.

I don’t think “obsolete” is a good word to use. The Church doesn’t use it. See, for example, CCC 54- 73 (e.g. the “everlasting” covenant with Noah) and 992 (“The creator of heaven and earth is also the one who faithfully maintains his covenant with Abraham and his posterity.”).

 

[gentle_atheist]

Why is it so important to avoid saying that the Old Covenant is obsolete, revoked, abolished, or replaced by the New Covenant?

Is it because Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices?

 

[diggerdomer]

Why is it so important to avoid saying that the Old Covenant is obsolete, revoked, abolished, or replaced by the New Covenant?

Is it because Catholics are praying for Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and resume animal sacrifices?

Because God is faithful to God’s covenants.

And, of course not (even Jews don’t pray for that)

 

[gentle_atheist]

Are you saying that the Old Covenant is still in effect?

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you saying that the Old Covenant is still in effect?

usccb.org/seia/StatementofPrinciples.pdf

See especially point 1

 

[Through_Him]

Here is an answer from This Rock;
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=2344

 

[SHW]

I don’t think “obsolete” is a good word to use. The Church doesn’t use it. See, for example, CCC 54- 73 (e.g. the “everlasting” covenant with Noah) and 992 (“The creator of heaven and earth is also the one who faithfully maintains his covenant with Abraham and his posterity.”).

Since Scripture is the Word of God, for translation from Greek to modern English, “obsolete” is the correct word.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. RSV-CE

13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. DRB (old English)

13 When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing. NAB-CE

All three ^above^ quoted Scripture references are from approved Catholic Bibles.

The Jews broke their Covenant with God. When either one of the two covenanters breaks the covenant, it is no longer in force. “Everlasting” means for the “duration” of the covenant. Noah never broke his covenant with God. The rainbow we see today attests to this fact.

“God” has never broken a covenant with man. “Man” has repeatedly broken his/their covenants with God. When men obey the covenant/God, then they receive blessings. When a covenant is broken, man is subjected to the curses which are attached to the breaking of the covenant. A new covenant must then be made in order to get back into God’s good graces after the old covenant has been broken.

Jesus who is both God and Man made the New Covenant with God and He will never break His covenant with God the Father. This is why the New Covenant will never end and the Old Covenant is truly obsolete. It is no longer in force whether the Jews know this fact or believe this fact. The Jews broke the Old Covenant.

Abraham never broke His covenant with God, this is why God promised him that a remnant of his posterity will be saved before Jesus returns at His Second Coming. Some of this Jewish remnant already converted to Christianity (New Covenant) such as Peter, Paul, John, etc. 2000 years ago. The rest of this Jewish remnant will come into the Church (New Covenant) shortly before Jesus returns because this is God’s promise to Abraham. The Church is Jesus’ Bride. The “New Jerusalem” in the Book of Revelation is the perfected Church.(Ephesians 5:22-23, Revelation 21:9-10)

Isaiah 10:22
Though your people, O Israel, be like the sand by the sea,
only a remnant will return.
Destruction has been decreed,
overwhelming and righteous.

God will permit only a “remnant” of Abraham’s descendants to return to the land of Israel because of their disobedience.

Romans 11:1-2
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

Paul states that he is a part of this Israel “remnant” group that is to be saved. (However, personally, he has responsibility for his own actions and he can be rejected from entering heaven by his own personal sins.)

Isaiah 11:11-12
In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. 11** In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second** time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

12 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.

The Jews were exiled when Jerusalem/temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and scattered into many other nations and they will return a second time to the land of Israel. (They are actually already there now since 1948.) This prophecy has been fulfilled.

Isaiah 28:4-6
That fading flower, his glorious beauty,
set on the head of a fertile valley,
will be like a fig ripe before harvest—
as soon as someone sees it and takes it in his hand,
he swallows it.

5 In that day the LORD Almighty
will be a glorious crown,
a beautiful wreath
for the remnant of his people.

6 He will be a spirit of justice
to him who sits in judgment,
a source of strength
to those who turn back the battle at the gate.

Jesus returns soon for His Second Coming after the Jews return to Israel. Jesus never rules on earth in the State of Israel. The earth is but His footstool, never His throne. (Acts 7:49) We do not know how long “soon” is because a day to the Lord is like a thousand years or a thousand years is like a day. (2 Peter 3:8)

 

[SHW]

usccb.org/seia/StatementofPrinciples.pdf

See especially point 1

A “covenant of eternal love” is not the same as the Old Covenant. This covenant of eternal love is the covenant God made with Abraham (& Isaac & Jacob). This is why a “remnant” of his/their posterity will be saved. God keeps His promises.

 

[SHW]

Are you saying that the Old Covenant is still in effect?

No, the Old Covenant is not in effect. It has not been in effect for about 2000 years. Jesus’ New Covenant is now in effect and it will never ever end because Jesus will never ever break it.