Posted on 04/03/2010 9:09:05 PM PDT by pissant
ROME – On Good Friday, two days before Easter, a prayer titled “Let us Pray for the Conversion of the Jews” was recited in Latin by traditionalist Catholic congregations in Italy, plus 16 sections of the Society of Saint Pius.
The ultra-conservative society, whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last year, has yet to be fully reintegrated into the Catholic Church, because of its refusal to accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
In 2007, in an effort to bring the traditionalist elements of the Church back into the fold, Benedict issued a “Motu Proprio” declaration allowing wider use of the 1962, pre-Vatican II Roman Missal containing this prayer, which was previously restricted to small groups. Three years ago only 30 Italian churches were affected by that decision, as opposed to the 118 that regularly use the liturgy today.
The word “conversion,” however, was not supposed to have been part of the title of this traditionalist Good Friday prayer. The official text, personally revised by the pope after Israel’s Chief Rabbinate expressed concerns regarding its content, was circulated in a note by Cardinal Bertone, theVatican’s secretary of state, in February 2008, bearing a new official title – “Oremus et pro Iudaeis,” or “Let us Pray for the Jews.” However, quite unexpectedly, that title has been changed to “Let us Pray for the Conversion of the Jews” in the brand new luxury re-edition of the missal currently flying off the shelves in Vatican bookstores.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Then please tell Jewish groups to stop trying to tell Catholics who they can have as saints, what prayers they are allowed to say, and what movies they can make about Jesus. As for myself, I don't get hysterical if someone says a prayer for me, such as the Mormons. Makes me happy someone is looking out for me.
>> Such a loving attitude. I’m praying for you twice as hard now.
You can pray until your face turns blue for all I care. As long as you don’t try to convert by force and intimidation, like you did in the past, when your church possessed significant political power in the West.
Regardless of what you may believe, we would never wish to go back to those times.
You are gravely mistaken. To begin with, the statement you quoted is NOT from the Second Vatican Council and does NOT reflect authentic Catholic doctrine. What the Council DOES say is that “the Church is the new people of God.”
Second, although the Jews have a covenant with God, it’s not the one you’re thinking of. God has replaced the covenant with Moses with a new and better covenant, which applies to all the world, including the Jews. If the Mosaic covenant were salvific, there would have been no need for a savior at all.
Because campaigns for large-scale Jewish conversion to Christianity are likely to be misunderstood and counter-productive, the Church makes a prudential judgment that they are ill-advised at this time. But it is quite wrong (and contrary to Holy Scripture) to conclude from this that they are theologically unacceptable. Do you suppose that when the Church prayed over the centuries for the conversion of the Jews she was in error, that the aspirations of the Body of Christ which is one in both space and time were somehow different then than now? I fear you have been deceived by the “hermeneuitic of rupture” of which we’re warned by the Holy Father, which falsely implies that today we’re somehow in a new church to which the Church of former ages is no longer relevant.
The Church is the universal instrument of salvation intended for all the world, and the Christian gospel is for all, Jews included. You are not doing the Jews any favors by assuring them that they’re perfectly fine in their “chosenness” as they are.
Speak for yourself. I already have a religion.
I’d love to go back to those times, as long as I could bring along modern medicine, plumbing, and so forth.
Conversion by force or fraud may have been practiced by some members of the Church at some point during history. However, such “conversions” have never been authorized by or accepted as valid by the Church in her official capacity. Although children of Christian parish are made Christian by virtue of their baptisms, baptism alone (of a child or a adult) is not sufficient to maintain a person in a state of full communion with Christ. Acknowledgement of Jesus for what He is (the Messiah) must be an ongoing act of free will on the part of a given individual.
Okay then. So you’re NOT an American first. Good for you. Whatever.
…God allows Muslims rather than Christians to control the Temple Mount… Because one or two generations of Christians have temporarily halted Jew-killing does not make them worthy of implicit trust.
How many generations of Muslims have "temporarily halted Jew-killing"?
Who persecuted the early Christians?
Completely non-sequitor.
Yours are not serious comments.
Doesn't the Wagf and official Islamic history deny that there even ever was a Temple on the mount? Don't the same Islamic groups today make the Nazis look mild in their raw hatred of Jews? I guess you need to go on and trust your "brothers" the Muslims--who besides seeking to kill Jewish Israelis daily, despise and deny that the Tanak is authoritative, more than those nasty Christians--who fully accept the Tanak, and solidly stand up for and defend Israel, eh?
I wonder just how many Noahides there are in the world?
Because one or two generations of Christians have temporarily halted Jew-killing does not make them worthy of implicit trust.
I can't say I know of any pogroms or systematic persecution, let alone killing, of Jews for at least 10 generations or more of Christians in America, and the UK too. You're a little cynical towards those who follow the Prince of Peace, are you not?
You are absolutely correct. Upon further research the statement was a part of a statement by the USCCB referencing VII and statements from JPII.
However, as I am in the USA, I am under the Bishops of the USCCB and I agree with their statement.
re: “Salvation - “rope” is not for man to offer. One can describe what the rope looks like so when they see it they will grab on, but to place oneself between any other man and salvation is the height of arrogance.”
RFEngineer, I don’t understand how I am placing myself between man and salvation when I point to that salvation (rope). I’m not the one who has the ability to save anyone, but I can point to the One who does. You may disagree that what I’m pointing to is truly salvation, but are you being fair to condemn my motives as arrogance merely because I attempted to point?
Is it automatically arrogance to believe that one knows the truth and others may not know it? Is it necessarily arrogance to try to tell others about that truth? Or, could it be that the true arrogance is to assume that you know the heart and motives of the person attempting to share what they believe to be the truth with you?
It doesn’t bother me if a Muslim, or some other person with a different religious viewpoint wants to talk to me about their faith and try to persuade me to their point of view. I certainly don’t think they are being arrogant - misguided perhaps, but not necessarily arrogant. I’m sure they believe that they have the truth - I’m not offended by that - why should I be? I would even bet you think what you believe is the truth, too - but, I wouldn’t consider you to be arrogant simply because you thought you were right and that I am wrong.
RE: “I was referring to the men with rope claiming to offer others Salvation that only God can offer. They are the aforementioned little false gods.”
I completely agree with you that it is only God that can offer salvation. I never claimed to the source of the salvation - only of having the responsibility of pointing others to the One whom I believe to be that source.
By the way, in your statment, didn’t you just do the very same “arrogant” thing you claimed I did? You just said that salvation is only something that God can offer - isn’t that an act of “pointing” (on your part) to the One you believe Who can save?
Someone once said,
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him might have everlasting life.”
In other words, it is indeed God who gives the gift of salvation, but you don’t have to accept. Is it arrogant to attempt to be a messenger of the news of that gift? According to your definition of arrogance, I guess I am.
You call me a “little false prophet”. Well, I don’t disagree that in and of myself, compared with the love, holiness, and greatness of God, I am very “little”, broken, small, sinful and very insignificant. As the apostle Paul once said, “It is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, not of works so that no one can boast.”
As to being a false prophet, well, I never claimed to be a prophet. God will decide one day who was telling the truth and who was not. I’ll leave it up to Him.
Compared to God allows Muslims to control the Temple Mount? Oh, well.
Actually, you are under your own bishop only. The USCCB is not an official teaching body and has no authority of its own. Their statements apply to you only if your bishop chooses to adopt them. And I respectfully suggest that even if your bishop does adopt the USCCB statement, he is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with tradition, scripture, and hthe magisterium. Have a look at the statement “Dominus Jesus” — which IS an official teaching document of the whole Church.
Can you give me the name of the source document for that statement? Thanks.
Nothing testy or vitrioic meant - I was just explaining in context of several comments here on why Jews have historically felt threatened by Christians intent on converting them by the sword. Is being annoyed at others murdering 1/3 of your people in so many generatons testy or vitriolic? I think not. One would have to say that the Jewish people’s turning the other cheek again and again makes them the most Christian nation in the history of the world. Lots has changed as the churches have matured. Many God-fearing Christians of today are dear friends of Israel and the Jewish people and Jews who are paying attention feel tremendous gratitude and friendship in return.
While I don’t know what you’re referring to in your first statement - “torturing and killing Christians?” - I do have seen for myself that evangelicals (not all Protestants) are sincere friends of Israel and the Jewish people. My statement did in no way blame Christians of today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.