We Still Pray for Heretics, Schismatics and the Conversion of the Jews

[RyanBlack]

Okay, but that is the prayer I posted in post 1.

I hope no one posting sees this thread as arguing.

Tim, do you find this prayer offensive or is it the previous one you find offensive?

I believe this is the prayer that many find to be offensive.

Let us pray also for the faithless 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 not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[TrueLight]

I believe this is the prayer that many find to be offensive.

Let us pray also for the faithless 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 not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Okay. I see.

 

[mattkubes]

I believe this is the prayer that many find to be offensive.

Let us pray also for the faithless 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 not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this prayer. Modern sensitivities and political correctness may not agree with the wording, but any offense taken is on the level of the purely subjective. The prayer accurately describes reality.

 

[mattkubes]

Was Our Lord just being insensitive when He asked St Faustina to include prayers for the conversion of “the pagans” and “heretics and schismatics” in the Divine Mercy novena? His words, not mine.

 

[RyanBlack]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this prayer. Modern sensitivities and political correctness may not agree with the wording, but any offense taken is on the level of the purely subjective. The prayer accurately describes reality.

If there’s “absolutely nothing wrong with this prayer,” then why did the Church see fit to change it? What do we really want to accomplish? Do we actually want Jews to become Christians, for Christians who hold false beliefs to come to accept the fullness of the truth, and for those not in communion with the Catholic Church to come into communion with her, or do we really prefer to beat them over their heads with labels such as “faithless” or “perfidious”, “heretics”, and “schismatics”? History has shown us that the use of such labels, while perhaps objectively true, serves little good in terms of actually bringing those to whom they are applied to convert to Christianity, to abandon false beliefs, or to enter into communion with the Catholic Church. As a former Protestant and former Orthodox, I assure you, had I encountered Catholics who had applied such labels to me and still chosen to become Catholic, it would have been in spite of such encounters, not because of them.

 

[TimothyH]

Let’s look at the prayer for the Jews again:

How is that offensive? Please help me understand.

You asked if I object and then asked how it is offensive. Those are two different things. Actually very few things I see in this world offend me personally. I just don’t take offense at much, especially in the past few years since I have become a Christian.

For you and I, and maybe even a former Jew who has become a devout Catholic, the prayer is probably not all that offensive. I confess that the prayer for the Jews is not all that offensive to me personally and in looking at it, I’m actually OK with it to a certain extent. The one for heritics and schizmatics not so much.

First, I know one man who is Jewish who takes offense at the term “Jew”. He will tell you that there is no such thing as a “Jew”, that the term is slang. I have not asked why but simply use the term “Jewish” or “The Jewish People” out of respect. I would not be surprised if it had something to do with the halocaust. I’ve never asked.

To a Jew, his heart does not need to be enlightened. He is not in the dark but a member of the original covenant people of God, a citizen of the nation of Israel by birth and through circumcision whom God called “My chosen Son.” God spoke to the Israelites first and when Mashiach comes, he will be a new Moses who will institute a new exodus. To a Jew, Jesus Christ was not the new Moses and there has been no new exodus, thank you very much.

Living in NYC I’m sure you have come across it. Talk to a devout Jew. Sit down and have a conversation if you have never done so. They are an extremely proud people and to tell them that they are in the dark and need to come to the light of truth is rediculous based on their covenant relationship with God. They would tell us that we are the ones who are fools, that we were the ones who have the wool pulled over our eyes.

Enslaved by Egypt for 400 years. Exiled to Babylon with ten of the twelve tribes dispersed into oblivion and Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple destroyed. Conquered by the Greeks under Alexander the Great who tried to hellenize the world and the nation of Israel. Destroyed again by Rome in 70 AD, which many still blame on the Christians. The land promised to them through Abraham by God himself taken by the Islamists. Sent to gas chambers and burned in ovens by Hitler. Surrounded by nations which declared war on them and attacked them on the day Israel was reestablished in 1949.

The motto for the Jewish Defense Leage is “Never Again.” I don’t know what the leaders of Iran are thinking but Israel will not let it happen again. That Israel will be saved through the fullness of the gentiles entering the Catholic Church is a nice sentiment, but they are not about their mothball their nuclear missles and turn turn the tanks into amusement park rides.

See what I mean?

The prayer wasn’t dictated by the Jews. They asked for some of the wording to be changed and the Holy Father agreed. They asked that the fifty foot high cross across the street from the Auschwitz death camp be taken down and the Holy Father made it happen. I don’t see what the big deal is. We still pray for them, that they “Come to the fullness of redemtion through Christ our Lord, Amen.” It’s not like we changed the doctrine of transubstantiation or something.

-Tim-

 

[MarkThompson]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this prayer. Modern sensitivities and political correctness may not agree with the wording, but any offense taken is on the level of the purely subjective. The prayer accurately describes reality.

The actual word used in the former prayer (perfidus) means “perfidious, treacherous, dangerous,” not “unbelieving.” See post #25 of this thread. Let’s see how it sounds with that little correction:
Let us pray also for the treacherous 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 not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish treachery: 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[mattkubes]

If there’s “absolutely nothing wrong with this prayer,” then why did the Church see fit to change it? What do we really want to accomplish? Do we actually want Jews to become Christians, for Christians who hold false beliefs to come to accept the fullness of the truth, and for those not in communion with the Catholic Church to come into communion with her, or do we really prefer to beat them over their heads with labels such as “faithless” or “perfidious”, “heretics”, and “schismatics”? History has shown us that the use of such labels, while perhaps objectively true, serves little good in terms of actually bringing those to whom they are applied to convert to Christianity, to abandon false beliefs, or to enter into communion with the Catholic Church. As a former Protestant and former Orthodox, I assure you, had I encountered Catholics who had applied such labels to me and still chosen to become Catholic, it would have been in spite of such encounters, not because of them.

There’s nothing wrong with the prayer. There’s also nothing wrong with the Church that saw fit to use it for centuries. The fact of the matter is that many Jews, heretics, and schismatics continued to convert even when these prayers were in widespread use. If there had been a massive increase in the number of converts after these changes were made, you might have a point. But that’s simply not the case.

I would argue that many conversions likely took place as a result of the old prayers. The Church was making an appeal to God for His grace, not a request to human sensibilities. And God’s grace is greater than any perceived offense.

 

[mattkubes]

The actual word used in the former prayer (perfidus) means “perfidious, treacherous, dangerous,” not “unbelieving.” See post #25 of this thread. Let’s see how it sounds with that little correction:
Let us pray also for the treacherous 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 not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish treachery: 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Again, nothing wrong with it.

Treachery implies betrayal or deception. The Jews made a promise to await the Messiah and give heed to His coming. Obviously the existence of modern Jews after the coming of Christ implies that they were not all faithful to that promise. Or to put it another way, they objectively betrayed their promise.

I must say, I find it interesting that many posters here seem content to find fault with the pre-1960s Magisterium.

 

[RyanBlack]

There’s nothing wrong with the prayer. There’s also nothing wrong with the Church that saw fit to use it for centuries. The fact of the matter is that many Jews, heretics, and schismatics continued to convert even when these prayers were in widespread use. If there had been a massive increase in the number of converts after these changes were made, you might have a point. But that’s simply not the case.

I would argue that many conversions likely took place as a result of the old prayers. The Church was making an appeal to God for His grace, not a request to human sensibilities. And God’s grace is greater than any perceived offense.

I don’t disagree with you that many conversions likely took place as a result of the old prayers-but not because of the unnecessarily harsh language. Yes, I agree that the Church was making an appeal to God for His grace, but such an appeal need not be made using such harsh language. I would argue that the Jews, heretics, and schismatics who converted did not do so because of the use of terms such as “faithless”, “perfidious”, “heretics”, and “schismatics”-but in spite of it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Again, nothing wrong with it.

Treachery implies betrayal or deception. The Jews made a promise to await the Messiah and give heed to His coming. Obviously the existence of modern Jews after the coming of Christ implies that they were not all faithful to that promise. Or to put it another way, they objectively betrayed their promise.

I must say, I find it interesting that many posters here seem content to find fault with the pre-1960s Magisterium.

Who is going to want to come to a Church that calls them, their families, and their faith tradition “treacherous”, or “betrayers” or “deceivers”? What do you really want vis-a-vis the Jews? Do you want them to come to belief in Christ as Savior and Lord, or do you prefer to heap insults upon them? The language as it existed presented an unnecessary stumbling block. It is good that it was changed.

I find it interesting that many poster here seem content to find fault with the Magisterium since the 1960s.

 

[MarkThompson]

Again, nothing wrong with it.

Treachery implies betrayal or deception. The Jews made a promise to await the Messiah and give heed to His coming. Obviously the existence of modern Jews after the coming of Christ implies that they were not all faithful to that promise. Or to put it another way, they objectively betrayed their promise.

Oh, great. Maybe next we can offer some prayers for “the filthy Jews,” and you can tell us all about how, as unbaptized persons, they bear the stain of original sin, so there’s “nothing wrong” with the phrase.

 

[mattkubes]

Who is going to want to come to a Church that calls them, their families, and their faith tradition “treacherous”, or “betrayers” or “deceivers”? What do you really want vis-a-vis the Jews? Do you want them to come to belief in Christ as Savior and Lord, or do you prefer to heap insults upon them? The language as it existed presented an unnecessary stumbling block. It is good that it was changed.

Who? Apparently all of the people who converted when those prayers were in force. And I’ve yet to see any convincing proof that the old prayers were any sort of stumbling block. The people who asked for them to be changed didn’t promise that they’d convert after the changes were made, they simply didn’t like that the prayers existed.

I find it interesting that many poster here seem content to find fault with the Magisterium since the 1960s.

Cute, but I’ve said nothing about the new prayers. I don’t think they’re bad, I doubt they’re less efficacious, and obviously I pray them in my missal. I’ve simply been arguing that there was nothing wrong with the old prayers or the Church that produced them; but many people here have been giving off that impression.

 

[TrueLight]

Living in NYC I’m sure you have come across it. Talk to a devout Jew. Sit down and have a conversation if you have never done so.

For short time I worked at a temp at a Jewish company and worked pretty closely to this really cool Orthodox Jewish woman. She was very fun and open about her religion and practices, so I got to learn a bit about Orthodox Jews.

They are an extremely proud people and to tell them that they are in the dark and need to come to the light of truth is rediculous based on their covenant relationship with God. They would tell us that we are the ones who are fools, that we were the ones who have the wool pulled over our eyes.

No one wants to be told they are in the dark. In fact, they are because… I hate to repeat myself, but “He came into his own and his own received him not.”

Praying for someone in darkness is one thing. No one with any sense is going to walk up to someone and say, “Hey, you’re in the dark. Convert now!” except for those street preachers. I would take another approach, for example talking about the things we have in common like love and fear of God.

But that doesn’t mean in my own church, I don’t pray for their conversion.

I agree that faithless/treacherous Jew is not good language to use.

 

[TrueLight]

Living in NYC I’m sure you have come across it. Talk to a devout Jew. Sit down and have a conversation if you have never done so.

 

[mattkubes]

Oh, great. Maybe next we can offer some prayers for “the filthy Jews,” and you can tell us all about how, as unbaptized persons, they bear the stain of original sin, so there’s “nothing wrong” with the phrase.

Don’t be obtuse. We’re talking about a Church-approved prayer that was devoutly prayed and offered by some of the holiest priests, Saints, and popes that the Church has known. There’s no need to resort to hyperbole.

Was the Church in error in offering this prayer? Was the old wording bad, or even evil? Did the Magisterium promulgate something that was contrary to the Faith?

 

[TimothyH]

I believe this is the prayer that many find to be offensive.

Let us pray also for the faithless 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 not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Yea, that one.

A Jew would hardly think he is faithless and blind. My comments still stand. The Jewish people have been beaten down more than any race I can think of and are wary of anything threatening.

The truth is that the Jewish people did loose faith in the Old Testament many times. God made the covenant with them and the first thing they did was worship the calf, except for the Levites, of course.

I just see no reason to use that language any more. They have a maniac in their back yard threatening to blow them into the Medditeranean Sea and people blowing up busses full of children on their way to school. Lets not act like its 70 AD all over again.

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

I must say, I find it interesting that many posters here seem content to find fault with the pre-1960s Magisterium.

I find zero fault with the methodology and language employed by Dominic & Francis, both of whom used language more in line with the prayers we pray now instead of the one with “treacherous” in them. Last I checked, their methods of evangilization have been in place for a few centuries.

Unless you seriously think the Franciscans could keep custody of the Holy Land using such language and keep their heads.

 

[TrueLight]

Was the Church in error in offering this prayer? Was the old wording bad, or even evil? Did the Magisterium promulgate something that was contrary to the Faith?

:sad_yes:

 

[RyanBlack]

Who? Apparently all of the people who converted when those prayers were in force. And I’ve yet to see any convincing proof that the old prayers were any sort of stumbling block. The people who asked for them to be changed didn’t promise that they’d convert after the changes were made, they simply didn’t like that the prayers existed.

Cute, but I’ve said nothing about the new prayers. I don’t think they’re bad, I doubt they’re less efficacious, and obviously I pray them in my missal. I’ve simply been arguing that there was nothing wrong with the old prayers or the Church that produced them; but many people here have been giving off that impression.

What about all the Jews, heretics, and schismatics who did not convert? If the old language was so wonderful, why didn’t all Jews, heretics, and schismatics convert? I agree with praying for the conversion of everyone-so with respect to this, yes, there was nothing wrong with the old prayers in their substance. However, the particular use of “perfidious” was not necessary. Not only was it not necessary, I see it as uncharitable. Just as we don’t blame those now born into Protestantism or Orthdodoxy for the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, we don’t blame those born into Judaism with the sins of those particular 1st century Jews who rejected the Lord. For most of them, their being Jewish is not really about rejecting Christ, but about embracing the faith into which they were born. I don’t see how insulting them is going to bring them to the Church.