And that has exactly what to do with what I just said? Pardon me, but perhaps you could show a logical connection between what another Pope did, and what this one did? I fail to see the connection, but I am sure you can enlighten me, since you brought it up.I’d like a reason for why a certain pope felt it necessary to have mistresses…
Let us not deceive ourselves into believing changing the prayer is going to “soften” some peoples hearts. Some will not be satisfied until we turn our back on Christ and proclaim that he is not who He is — therefore there is no need for conversion.
adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/5220_96.htm
I’ll say it loud and clear: the Jews don’t have a separate path to salvation. There is 1 path, and that is Christ. 1 path for all humanity.
The new prayer is theologically ambiguous and of questionably elegant Latinity. That said, personally I could care less; the Jews aren’t happy, the traditionalists aren’t happy…hardly a success overall.
The impression the average Catholic is getting is the serious problem: the average Catholic is hearing a message that Nostra Aetate suddenly marked a new development in salvific doctrines as re: Jews.
When you have prelates claiming that Jews don’t need to enter the Catholic Church, there’s a SERIOUS problem in the Church. And such prelates exist.
EWTN and Catholic Answers highlight Moss and Schoenstein. They imply there is a dual coventant. Read Schoentisn’s book ‘Salvation is From The Jews’ and see what Moss’s brother high up in the Hebrew Catholic Association says.I’ll say it loud and clear: the Jews don’t have a separate path to salvation. There is 1 path, and that is Christ. 1 path for all humanity.
The new prayer is theologically ambiguous and of questionably elegant Latinity. That said, personally I could care less; the Jews aren’t happy, the traditionalists aren’t happy…hardly a success overall.
The impression the average Catholic is getting is the serious problem: the average Catholic is hearing a message that Nostra Aetate suddenly marked a new development in salvific doctrines as re: Jews.
When you have prelates claiming that Jews don’t need to enter the Catholic Church, there’s a SERIOUS problem in the Church. And such prelates exist.
I’m suggesting that if appeasing the Jews was the reason, it was a bad reason.The Jews did not edit our prayer; the Pope did.
Given the fact the he is considered one of the most brilliant theologians alive today, perhaps he had a reason that you don’t see. Are you suggesting he needs to give you a reason for what he does?
What Missal is that '62 prayer from ? My Angelus '62 has the one latinmasslover posted in post # 3 .CathCon has the new good friday prayer translated from the German edition of Vatican Radio.
In Latin
Oremus et pro Iudaeis
Ut et Dominus Deus noster illuminet corda eorum ut agnoscant Iesum Christ salvatorem omnium hominum.
Oremus. Flectamus Genoa. Levate.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ut omnes qui vis salvi fiant homines et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius ut plenitudine Gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum Nostrum. Amen.
The translation of latinist Gero Weishaupt:
We pray for the Jews.
That our God and Lord enlighten their hearts so that they recognize Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all mankind.
Let us pray. Kneel down. Arise.
Eternal God Almighty, you want all people to be saved and to arrive at the knowledge of the Truth, graciously grant that by the entry of the abundance of all peoples into your Church, Israel will be saved. (Or: that the whole of Israel will be saved if the abundance (fullness) of all peoples enters into Your Church). Through Christ our Lord.
This replaces the old 1962 prayer****:
Let us pray also for the Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost also not exclude from thy mercy the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
The prayer currently said in the Novus Ordo is:
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.
No it was not.The whole point of Vatican II was to make the Church “politcally correct,” though the more common phrase is “updating the Church with the times,” but more accurately “helping Christ see the light of truth.”
In post #37 you said: Are you suggesting he needs to give you a reason for what he does?And that has exactly what to do with what I just said? Pardon me, but perhaps you could show a logical connection between what another Pope did, and what this one did? I fail to see the connection, but I am sure you can enlighten me, since you brought it up.
So the grand purpose of V-II was __________? Reading the documents of that Council it appears to be trying to make the Church “nice.” How is that not the politically correct thing to do?No it was not.
Political correctness is a disgusting product of our modern times, a product of the heresy of modernism.
The essence of Vatican II has been hijacked and used for these ends.
John XXIII stressed the pastoral, not doctrinal, nature of the Council: The Church did not need to repeat or reformulate existing doctrines and dogmata but rather had to teach Christ’s message in light of the modern world’s ever-changing trends. He exhorted the Council Fathers “to use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity” in the documents they would produce.So the grand purpose of V-II was __________?
What a shallow reading of the documents; yes, some are nebulous, but they in no way dumb down the Church’s doctrine.Reading the documents of that Council it appears to be trying to make the Church “nice.” How is that not the politically correct thing to do?
I didn’t say that the Council messed with the doctrine, just how the doctrine is taught (or rather, not taught). There’s a lot of ambiguity in the documents, as I’m sure you will agree. Ambiguity was used in order to thwart later. The liberals knew what they were doing, but since it was all “merciful,” (and therefore not so obvious), we have the mess we have today. The Council was not clear (lots of room for misinterpretation), and that is what’s wrong with it.John XXIII stressed the pastoral, not doctrinal, nature of the Council: The Church did not need to repeat or reformulate existing doctrines and dogmata but rather had to teach Christ’s message in light of the modern world’s ever-changing trends. He exhorted the Council Fathers “to use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity” in the documents they would produce.
Paul VI:
What a shallow reading of the documents; yes, some are nebulous, but they in no way dumb down the Church’s doctrine.
- to more fully define the nature of the church and the role of the bishop;* to renew the church;* to restore unity among all Christians, including seeking pardon for Catholic contributions to separation;* and to start a dialogue with the contemporary world.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit foresaw that some ambiguity was the best way for the Bark of Peter to weather the great storm that was coming. Who knows.I didn’t say that the Council messed with the doctrine, just how the doctrine is taught (or rather, not taught). There’s a lot of ambiguity in the documents, as I’m sure you will agree. Ambiguity was used in order to thwart later. The liberals knew what they were doing, but since it was all “merciful,” (and therefore not so obvious), we have the mess we have today. The Council was not clear (lots of room for misinterpretation), and that is what’s wrong with it.
Oh, I’ll agree with you there; I thought were saying that the purpose of Vatican II was sortof to make the Church all wooly and fluffy at the edges.I didn’t say that the Council messed with the doctrine, just how the doctrine is taught (or rather, not taught). There’s a lot of ambiguity in the documents, as I’m sure you will agree. Ambiguity was used in order to thwart later. The liberals knew what they were doing, but since it was all “merciful,” (and therefore not so obvious), we have the mess we have today. The Council was not clear (lots of room for misinterpretation), and that is what’s wrong with it.
Please cite your source for the statement that Vatican 2 was to make the Church “politically correct”. I have read the documents of Vatican 2; I fail to see that any of them have anything whatsoever to do with “political correctness”. Nor is there anything in them that has to do with “helping Christ see the ligfht of truth”; that is the oddest statement I have ever seen.The whole point of Vatican II was to make the Church “politcally correct,” though the more common phrase is “updating the Church with the times,” but more accurately “helping Christ see the light of truth.”
Are you saying that the Church for the first 1900s was competely naive of what you’re saying, the Saints and Popes and Councils, and that God granted this great illumination during the strung-out sixties where the only “truth” is “to each his own?”
I have read the documents, and I’m not the only person who’s read/studied them and still manages to disagree with you. “He who is not with Me is against Me.” The us-vs-them came right from His infallible mouth and the Church wants to change this? My statement “show Christ the light of truth” seems to stand with that argument.Please cite your source for the statement that Vatican 2 was to make the Church “politically correct”. I have read the documents of Vatican 2; I fail to see that any of them have anything whatsoever to do with “political correctness”. Nor is there anything in them that has to do with “helping Christ see the ligfht of truth”; that is the oddest statement I have ever seen.
There was an effort to get the Church out of the "us versus them "mode of the 1500’s, a portion of which had to do with the political realignment that occured; most of it was about doctrine, but the Church had a great deal of political sway in Europe (which was the start of separation of Church and State).
But I would suggest that “political correctness” was an issue being resolved long, long before Vatican 2. You might try reading the documents, instead of just expounding on them.
My opinion tends to come off the way you thought, and this is something I’m working on. I do believe that the intentions of the Pope were good, but the liberals in the Council did what they could in order to distort things later. I do not know the Pope’s true intentions, but I’d like to think they were good. I myself wish I had a true love for God and gave no thought to Hell because I am so in love with Him. That’s not the case yet. I can’t recall which Saint said this: we cannot truly love God unless we fear Him (holy fear, of course).Oh, I’ll agree with you there; I thought were saying that the purpose of Vatican II was sortof to make the Church all wooly and fluffy at the edges.
Changing a prayer isn’t necessarily equal to fornication… My, how Moral Theology has changed.In post #37 you said: Are you suggesting he needs to give you a reason for what he does?
Changing a prayer isn’t necessarily (especially in this case) equal to fornication, but that was the question I had commented on.