L
Lujack
Guest
That actually doesn’t matter, because it is nonetheless binding, at least as I understand it.I didn’t say it was absurd. I simply said it wasn’t infallible.
- PAX
That actually doesn’t matter, because it is nonetheless binding, at least as I understand it.I didn’t say it was absurd. I simply said it wasn’t infallible.
- PAX
At least to the anti-semitism, I am suggesting that perhaps the Church altered the prayer not out of concern for how Jews might feel (although avoiding unnecessary insult should be a consideration), but out of concern for how Catholics were acting. In other words, the words of the prayer were interacting with an existing prejudice in a way that was promoting bad actions. Altering the prayer took away an excuse that bigots could have for their bigotry.Can we please not let this get derailed into a discussion over the infallibility of the CCC? I think that would do better in its own thread.
So anyway, I’d like to comment on the question of charity as it regards the use of the terms heretics and schismatics and even the term conversion when it comes to the Jewish people.
I’m sure there were people who were anti-semetic or cruel in other ways, but didn’t the Church itself institute the prayers out of charity? Did they not come about because of the concern over souls? And are we saying the Church was uncharitable during all the years those prayers were being said?
Also, if a Mormon says I am a heretic, I wouldn’t get mad. I am a heretic as it concerns their faith. I don’t believe what they believe.
Again we are speaking of pre-1962 - also the intercession for schismatic and heretic is different from the intercession for the Jews.I followed along in the Angelus Press Roman Catholic Daily missal and it used the terms schismatics and heretics, as did the Celebrant.
Is there another missal that uses different language?
Now I’m really curious. Would the pre-1962 missals have different language?
There is simply no need for the language.Can we please not let this get derailed into a discussion over the infallibility of the CCC? I think that would do better in its own thread.
So anyway, I’d like to comment on the question of charity as it regards the use of the terms heretics and schismatics and even the term conversion when it comes to the Jewish people.
I’m sure there were people who were anti-semetic or cruel in other ways, but didn’t the Church itself institute the prayers out of charity? Did they not come about because of the concern over souls? And are we saying the Church was uncharitable during all the years those prayers were being said?
Also, if a Mormon says I am a heretic, I wouldn’t get mad. I am a heretic as it concerns their faith. I don’t believe what they believe.
Outstanding finds! This very much mirrors how the Dominicans operate/have operated.Vatican II did not originate the idea of the possibility of a non-Catholic being saved.
Please note the words of Pius IX:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7
The idea of “separated brethren” has its origins from Pius XII:
- Likewise, We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us, who though unworthy, represent the person of Jesus Christ on earth. Let us then reecho that divine prayer of our Savior to the heavenly Father: “That they all may be one, as thou Father in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” [193]
- As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. [194] Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the “great and glorious Body of Christ,” [195] and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. [196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. [197] Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger’s house, but to their own, their father’s home.
So there were no converts before?That’s the kind of stuff that converts. Calling people schizmatics and heretics doesn’t convert a single person.
-Tim-
Hi Melchior,Outstanding finds! This very much mirrors how the Dominicans operate/have operated.
Indeed.Again we are speaking of pre-1962 - also the intercession for schismatic and heretic is different from the intercession for the Jews.
I actually think it’s a beautiful thing that all these specific groups are covered.Indeed.
As are
Prayers for the Church
Prayers for the Pope
Prayers for the Clergy and People
Prayers for the Catechumens
Prayers for the Afflicated and in Danger
Prayers for the Pagans
That should cover everyone for which Christ died. I suppose saying “for all” is perhaps more PC these days but it’s good to know you’ve covered those inside and outside of the Church as well. It shouldn’t be a controversial item, IMO, but it can lead one to ask are the faithful Jews considered part of any one of the other groups listed above.
Exactly and God calls us to love which is why the language was changed - it was not loving.I think that people who objects should stop immidiatly, but listen to God and do what He excepts them to do.
If we could quit with all the but`s and replace them with: Yes, my Lord… the world would be such a much better place to live in.
Obedience to God and the scriptures is the language that should matter most to all catholics.
If there were it was in spite of those names, not because of them.So there were no converts before?
In the year 2012, at St. Catherine of Siena Parish in Kennesaw, Georgia, where probably fifteen percent of the parish including one of the deacons were former Southern Baptists, yes.For those who object to the language, do you think object to the Extraordinary form using that 1962 missal without the revisions and saying this prayers which include the language?
Let’s look at the prayer for the Jews again:In the Year 2012, at St. Matthew’s Parish in Dix Hills, Long Island, where a significant portion of the congregation have last names like Kletzl and Stein, yes.
-Tim-
FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS
Let us pray for the Jews: May our God and
Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they
may acknowledge Jesus Christ, Saviour of
all men
How is that offensive? Please help me understand.Almighty and Everlasting God, who desirest
that all men be saved and come to
the knowledge of the truth; mercifully
grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles
enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be
saved. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
That prayer is not offensive. It was the prayer that that prayer replaced that was offensive. You guys are all arguing at each other because you refuse to listen to each other and that is exactly a small representation of the same problem created with ecumenicalism.Let’s look at the prayer for the Jews again:
How is that offensive? Please help me understand.
Okay, but that is the prayer I posted in post 1.That prayer is not offensive. It was the prayer that that prayer replaced that was offensive. You guys are all arguing at each other because you refuse to listen to each other and that is exactly a small representation of the same problem created with ecumenicalism.