Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: LM on March 10, 2011, 09:32:02 AM
-
Church should not pursue conversion of Jews, pope says
by John L Allen Jr on Mar. 10, 2011
* NCR Today
After excerpts from the second volume of the pope’s book on Jesus made the rounds last week, featuring his rejection of the idea that “the Jews” killed Christ, the full text adds another point with important implications for Christian/Jєωιѕн relations -- in effect, that Christianity “must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews.”
The comment comes in Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, the full text of which was released today.
While the pope does not affirm a theory propounded by some theologians holding that the Jews will be saved independently of Christ, experts say, he does clearly suggest the church should not be targeting Jews for conversion efforts.
“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” the pope writes. The historical duration of this “proper time,” Benedict says, cannot be calculated.
In terms of the proper Christian attitude in the meantime, Benedict approvingly quotes Cistercian abbess and Biblical writer Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”
Although Benedict XVI stipulated in the first volume of his book that he writes as a private theologian rather than authoritatively as head of the Catholic church, his comments inevitably carry weight as indications of the way Benedict is likely to approach these questions as pope.
The question of conversion has long been among the most explosive in the arena of Catholic/Jєωιѕн relations. Still today, perceptions in the Jєωιѕн world that Christians are targeting them for missionary efforts produce sharply negative reactions.
Benedict XVI acknowledges that the question of “Israel’s mission” in God’s plan has a painful past.
“We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history,” he writes. Yet, the pope says, “the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep the shadows.”
The key to that correct understanding, Benedict writes, lies in the Biblical notion of the “times of the Gentiles.”
The charge given by Jesus to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth, Benedict says, implies a sequence: first the “full number” of the Gentiles comes to the faith, and only then the Jews. He quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s advice to one of his predecessors, Pope Eugene III, that “a determined time has been fixed” for the conversion of the Jews “that cannot be anticipated.”
Benedict says that in the early church, the urgency of evangelization wasn’t based so much on the idea that every human being had to know Christ in order to be saved, but rather on a “grand conception of history,” according to which the Gospel had to reach all the nations in order for the world to fulfill its destiny.
Until God’s plan comes to fruition, Benedict says, the “particular task” of the disciples of Christ is to carry the faith to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.
The question of whether including Jews in the church’s missionary efforts is legitimate has long been a debated point in Catholic circles.
Almost ten years ago, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles was critical of a joint statement from the National Council of ѕуηαgσgυєs and the Committee for Ecuмenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to the effect that “targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity” is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”
Dulles replied that the church cannot curtail the scope of the gospel without betraying itself: “Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life,” he wrote.
Subsequently, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine issued a clarification in 2009 that most experts regarded as largely upholding the position taken by Dulles. Its conclusion was, “The fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.”
Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Doctrine, cautioned that Benedict XVI’s lines on Judaism in the new book do not endorse a “two-covenant” theology, meaning that Christianity and Judaism represent two parallel paths to salvation, so that Jews are saved without any reference to Christ.
At the same time, Weinandy said, the pope’s words do clearly indicate that “there’s no specific program that the Catholic church has to convert Jews, which is in God’s time.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a Jєωιѕн scholar whose Biblical writings have been praised by Benedict XVI, said the pope’s conciliatory statements about Judaism in Jesus of Nazareth are all the more powerful because they’re grounded in scholarship rather than mere inter-faith diplomacy.
“He’s talking about truth, not about convenience,” Neusner said.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/church-should-not-pursue-conversion-jews-pope-says
-
If he is not a heretic, then he is at least a pseudo-heretic. Not even Vatican II went that far:
"Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s command ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 16)
-
Look at them acting as if JPII never said that "the Old Covenant has never been revoked."
The Modernist tactics are becoming more clear to me. You can see it with the story about the United States bishops. What they do is, first, they spread some error or heresy which then infects countless souls. The U.S. bishops released a statement, to the press I'm assuming, saying the Church should no longer try to convert the Jews. This undoubtedly went worldwide and was taught in Novus Ordo churches across the land. Then a week later someone will say something conservative, like Dulles here, saying "Hm, well, I'm not no sure..." Very few people hear it and by then it's too late anyway. But the effect of this is to neutralize the opposition, who hear what they want to hear, even if no one else hears it, and they use this to pretend as if the Novus Ordo structures still contain a conservative element...
Benedict himself is a master of this. He will say something heretical, do something blasphemous one day, and then the next he'll give a sop to those who have blinded themselves to believe he is conservative. He allows people to see him however they want to see him, making himself into a kind of non-personality and non-theologian with no fixed center, no way to ever pin him down to anything concrete, so that no one ever knows what he really believes.
This works to the devil's advantage in TWO ways -- those who want the Church to be more liberal ( heretical ) take advantage of his words to put their reforms into place, but the conservatives, because of his occasional orthodox statement, can take the easy way out and pretend that he is one of them. This buys him more time to do more damage.
I compare it to someone who alternates between roundhouse-kicking his wife in the face and then singing love ballads to her on his guitar, to get her to stay. This is undoubtedly what makes it so hard for people to become sedevacantist and chase these imposters out. It's easier to just pull up one of Ratzinger's little conservative-sounding statements and then create a fantasy around it that he's going to "change," much easier than becoming what they think of as a loony, extreme sedevacantist. It's no accident Vatican II has gone on for forty years, this is how it works.
-
Granted, Ratzinger COULD conceivably change, he could become a Catholic, nothing is impossible with God. But we don't have to pretend he's Pope while we wait for this desirable but unlikely event. Just praying for him is enough.
-
Raoul, this is what I cannot understand, so I am going to open up a new thread on it, the issue of "implicit faith." We need to explore this further. Maybe the Pope, in his heart, at least believes implicitly the truths of the Catholic faith. He simply just does not know that! :dancing: :alcohol: (That's you and me, btw, in cyberspace.) :jumping2: :bob-marley: :read-paper:
-
I'm totally floored. He truly has a warped notion of the early Church and salvation. Of course this is his "private opinion" say the Neo Caths. What insanity... Sigh
-
He truly has a warped notion of the early Church and salvation. Of course this is his "private opinion" say the Neo Caths.
A man who publicly shares his private, heretical opinions is...a public heretic. Was Luther condemned for publicly teaching ideas that were NOT his private opinions? Uh, no. He publicly taught his private, heretical opinions and...he was condemned for doing so.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...it is a...giraffe??? 2+2=22???
-
John XXII publicly shared his private heretical opinion and was still Pope.
-
Granted, Ratzinger COULD conceivably change, he could become a Catholic, nothing is impossible with God. But we don't have to pretend he's Pope while we wait for this desirable but unlikely event. Just praying for him is enough.
Agreed. There is no way this man can say the stuff he does and be a legitimate Pope. Lets pray that he becomes a Catholic and can truly be the succesor of Peter.
-
I'm totally floored. He truly has a warped notion of the early Church and salvation. Of course this is his "private opinion" say the Neo Caths. What insanity... Sigh
Dont be too floored its Ratzinger after all one of the biggest libs at the council so hip and with the times he wore a suite and tie. :dancing:
Not to mention being on Pius XII list of heretics.
-
Do you have proof to back up that Ratzinger was on Pius XII's list of heretics?
-
Never heard that one, but it would not REALLY matter to you if it were true, stevus.
-
John XXII publicly shared his private heretical opinion and was still Pope.
It had not been defined yet, genius :)
Read up on these things BEFORE responding. Thanks.
-
Believe it or not, the ecclesiological errors of ecuмenism haven't been defined either.
-
Ratzinger was on some kind of watch list of those suspected of heresy by the Holy Office under Pius XII.
When you consider who Pius XII surrounded himself with, we're talking names like Cardinal Bea, Bugnini, Montini, and out of all these people who were soon to be infamous, it was Ratzinger who was on a watch list -- that should tell you a little something.
-
Believe it or not, the ecclesiological errors of ecuмenism haven't been defined either.
Do tell...
Do you mean the errors have not been defined, or the opposite truths have not been defined?
Perhaps the line from the Creed that says "ONE..." needs note of clarification?
-
essentially the liberal, modernists will all fall back on "invincible ignorance" to explain why jews need not be converted immediately. So in other words, they will claim its better to let souls on Earth remain in "ignorance of the true faith" and this will benefit those souls more so than converting to Catholicism.
-
I see, so St. Alphonsus and all those Jesuits and Pius IX were all forerunners of Vatican II.
Sadly to say, I once actually believed this.
Deliveringit1 said:
they will claim its better to let souls on Earth remain in "ignorance of the true faith" and this will benefit those souls more so than converting to Catholicism.
Deliveringit1, have you ever heard anyone actually say this, that a soul would be better off left in ignorance and that someone would have a better chance to be saved without baptism? Just wondering.
-
essentially the liberal, modernists will all fall back on "invincible ignorance" to explain why jews need not be converted immediately. So in other words, they will claim its better to let souls on Earth remain in "ignorance of the true faith" and this will benefit those souls more so than converting to Catholicism.
Actually no, I don't think they would even argue that.
Because of the claim that the old Covenant is not revoked, because of the claim that "the Jєωιѕн reading of Scriptures" is a possible one, they are really saying Jews are right to believe what they believe until the end.
-
Believe it or not, the ecclesiological errors of ecuмenism haven't been defined either.
Do tell...
Do you mean the errors have not been defined, or the opposite truths have not been defined?
Perhaps the line from the Creed that says "ONE..." needs note of clarification?
I mean the nature of the Church has not been dogmatically defined. Obviously, the doctrine is found within tradition and taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, but it has not been defined, strictly speaking, in order to make its denial heresy strictly speaking against divine and catholic faith. I think it is heretical in the sense that it denies a truth of divine revelation, but that is my opinion. A truth could be revealed while not yet defined by the Church as such.
You mention that the Creed states the Church is "One" but in what sense is it one, what is the nature of this unity? We all know and hold to the Catholic doctrine relating to this note while the new theologians deny it.
Many truths we hold as part of the Catholic faith have not been dogmatically defined, but it would be just as deadly to deny any of them.
-
On another forum, someone brought up Romans 11:25-26 as a possible reason for why Benedict XVI said what he said. In fact, all of Romans 11 seems to back it up.
Now, I'm not trying to start an argument or play devil's advocate, but I'm wondering what you all think about this.
Personally, I don't know what to make of it. At first glimpse, it sounds like these verses were meant for something else. But I can also see how someone could misinterpret them.
-
John XXII publicly shared his private heretical opinion and was still Pope.
It had not been defined yet, genius :)
Read up on these things BEFORE responding. Thanks.
True, but it was part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is why there was a movement to declare the Pope to be a heretic.
-
If I say this is heresy, does that make me a sede?
-
Ratzinger was on some kind of watch list of those suspected of heresy by the Holy Office under Pius XII.
Is there any citation or copy of this?
-
Ratzinger was on some kind of watch list of those suspected of heresy by the Holy Office under Pius XII.
Is there any citation or copy of this?
I don't know if this is true, but the man Joseph Ratzinger was HIGHLY influenced by many men whose writings and philosophy were deemed heresy. Lately, he has been issuing many statements that, in light of Tradition, are heretical.
-
We also know this:
Young Professor Ratzinger, then just 30 years old, took part in the Council from the inside, aligned with the most radical progressive theologians (the Rahners, de Lubacs, Congars, etc.), those forming the "Rhone Alliance." In his memoirs he seeks to downplay his participation in this "Sodalitium." He writes that "the theological and ecclesial drama of those years [does not] belong in these memoirs".
-
It had not been defined yet, genius :)
So if something has not been dogmatically defined, there can be no heresy and the opinion is valid. Therefore BXVI can spout whatever he'd like unless it directly and unambiguously contradicts a defined dogma, and still be Pope.
Thanks for clarifying, genius!
-
If I say this is heresy, does that make me a sede?
No.
-
It had not been defined yet, genius :)
So if something has not been dogmatically defined, there can be no heresy and the opinion is valid...
That does not necessarily follow, but I do not expect you to admit your take on J22 is uninformed/incorrect.
Again, learn what actually happened in J22's case; then comment.
-
Already know what happened. Obviously you must have read the revised Sede version complete with absurd hair splitting explanation.
-
Says the man who had not even read Mortalium animos...
FWIW, could you cite the "absurd" explanation to which you refer, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?
-
You pull your entire theology out of your ass and it shows in every post.
Don't you have a conclave to get to?
-
John XXII had a private opinion which he made public, against the ordinary magisterium of the Church. You accept him as Pope.
BXVI gave a private opinion which he made public apparently against the ordinary magisterium of the Church (we haven't seen his words yet). You deny BXVI is Pope ON THIS BASIS as a public heretic.
In reality you shoot first, then aim and ask questions later. You consistently assume what it is you should be proving and then add arrogance to your ignorance. A deadly combination.
-
You deny BXVI is Pope ON THIS BASIS as a public heretic.
No, I actually don't, but it is pointless to discuss this further with you. Ciao...
In reality you shoot first, then aim and ask questions later.
Uh, that would describe your method, stevus. You know very little about what I think or why. Goodbye.
-
Don't you have a conclave to get to?
This comment proves -- yet again -- you do not even know what I think about the present crisis.
-
Obviously you must have read the revised Sede version complete with absurd hair splitting explanation.
Did I miss your citation of any such "absurd" explanation? Or did you fail to provide it (because there is no such "absurd hair splitting explanation")?
-
If you don't deny BXVI is Pope because he is a public heretic, why the Hell DO you deny he is Pope? Because you don't like his red shoes?
You also apparently have absolutely no ability to discern sarcasm.
-
John XXII had a private opinion which he made public, against the ordinary magisterium of the Church. You accept him as Pope.
BXVI gave a private opinion which he made public apparently against the ordinary magisterium of the Church (we haven't seen his words yet). You deny BXVI is Pope ON THIS BASIS as a public heretic.
In reality you shoot first, then aim and ask questions later. You consistently assume what it is you should be proving and then add arrogance to your ignorance. A deadly combination.
Here's some reading to "lull" you to sleep tonight stevus.
http://www.forward.com/articles/135991/
-
In reality you shoot first, then aim and ask questions later.
If you don't deny BXVI is Pope because he is a public heretic, why the Hell DO you deny he is Pope? Because you don't like his red shoes?
BTW, what is the specific gravity of dog turd?
-
LM,
That basically reiterates what we have already heard.
The Pope is in left field on this issue. There are no two ways about it. He is so far entrenched in his quasi-modernist mindset, up is down and down is up. It's like having a mental disease.
-
BTW, what is the specific gravity of dog turd?
About the same as your arguments.
-
LM,
That basically reiterates what we have already heard.
The Pope is in left field on this issue. There are no two ways about it. He is so far entrenched in his quasi-modernist mindset, up is down and down is up. It's like having a mental disease.
Quasi-modernists mindset, so to you B16 "resembles" a modernist, not that he is actually one.
-
Do you have proof to back up that Ratzinger was on Pius XII's list of heretics?
There's a docuмent on Tradition in action of Theologians that are suspect of heresy it contains Rahner Ratzinger and some other big wig at the council I'll see if I can dig it up.
-
Do you have proof to back up that Ratzinger was on Pius XII's list of heretics?
There's a docuмent on Tradition in action of Theologians that are suspect of heresy it contains Rahner Ratzinger and some other big wig at the council I'll see if I can dig it up.
Here we go.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgessivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatinger.htm
-
You forgot an "r":
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_001_CondemnationRatzinger.htm
-
BTW, what is the specific gravity of dog turd?
About the same as your arguments.
:laugh2: See, this is a decent retort. I (naturally) disagree, but I must give credit where it is due. Yes, you completely (and wisely) avoided the substance of the post, but I am neither surprised nor disappointed.
-
Truce, Eamon. I was dumb enough to do my part to let the devil reduce our conversation to petty bickering, but I'm not dumb enough to let it go on. Sorry if I was rash and uncharitable in anything I said.
I would converse diplomatically about JXII, but I really have neither the desire nor the time & energy.
I'd rather devote what little of these I have to a simple discussion of BXVI's latest comments. Most importantly, a logical blow by blow of why his comments are crazy, with the canonical question of whether he is Pope, aside.
-
Truce, Eamon...Sorry if I was rash and uncharitable in anything I said.
Sounds good to me, amigo :)
I accept your apology and offer you an apology, too, for having given any kind of offense. Godspeed, stevus.
-
Do you have proof to back up that Ratzinger was on Pius XII's list of heretics?
It should also be noted for that John XXIII was considered suspect of heresy under St. Pius X.
-
Do you have proof to back up that Ratzinger was on Pius XII's list of heretics?
It should also be noted for that John XXIII was considered suspect of heresy under St. Pius X.
I didn't know that one. Seems like all the Popes and Prelates involved in the post VII Church were all heretics. Makes ya wonder. :scratchchin:
-
I'm totally floored. He truly has a warped notion of the early Church and salvation. Of course this is his "private opinion" say the Neo Caths. What insanity... Sigh
I would say that a "warped notion" of the early Church and salvation does not quite explain the pope's utterances. He, in fact, totally denies the history of the early Church. Every single Biblical verse and passage depicting a missionary effort to convert the jews is implicitly denied. Had Sts. Paul and Peter subscribed to Ratzinger's formula for an automatic future conversion of the jews, there would have been no early Church- no Church period, since all of the early Church was composed of Jєωιѕн converts. Just look at the Acts of the Apostles. Not until you get to chapter 10 of that book, do you have one recorded gentile Christian convert. Ratzinger is a no-holds-barred heretic!
-
I suppose he is saying Christ converted an original # of Jews and then they were sent out to convert the Gentiles? If some Jews wanted to join them, then fine, but their mission was not to convert existing Jews? I'm not sure how he holds this position with a straight face, if this is it.