Author Topic: B16 on Judaism and the change in the Good Friday Prayer (Read 2978 times)

LM · « **on:** November 22, 2010, 10:23:27 AM »

B16 seems to be saying the mission to convert the Jєωs is dead. Its all about waiting for the "historic hour" when supposedly the Jєωs will convert, this being the Jєωs "respective mission". Poor St. Stephen, it seems he died for naught.

Of course until that time it seems, the Church will bend over not to "wound/offend" the Jєωs, in essence the Church is now a foot stool.

Quote

Judaism

I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one's way of being and respective mission [. . .]

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jєωs, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jєωιѕн friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jєωs, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jєωs in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345667?eng=y

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2010, 10:52:45 AM »

Quote from: LM

B16 seems to be saying the mission to convert the Jєωs is dead. Its all about waiting for the "historic hour" when supposedly the Jєωs will convert, this being the Jєωs "respective mission". Poor St. Stephen, it seems he died for naught.

Of course until that time it seems, the Church will bend over not to "wound/offend" the Jєωs, in essence the Church is now a foot stool.

Quote

Judaism

I must say that from the first day of my theological studies, the profound unity between the Old and New Testament, between the two parts of our Sacred Scripture, was somehow clear to me. I had realized that we could read the New Testament only together with what had preceded it, otherwise we would not understand it. Then naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought. So it was clear to me – and here again in absolute continuity with John Paul II – that in my proclamation of the Christian faith there had to be a central place for this new interweaving, with love and understanding, of Israel and the Church, based on respect for each one's way of being and respective mission [. . .]

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jєωs, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jєωιѕн friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jєωs, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jєωs in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345667?eng=y

And the fact of the matter is, this is worse than what he said about those immoral devices.

But Catholics have been conditioned not to be much more sensitive to the issues contraception and abortion and to not give scandal of judaizing a moment's thought.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2010, 11:32:00 AM »

The destructive mind of a neo-modernist. Outrageous. Extremely hateful towards God and neighbor.

MauricePinay · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2010, 01:52:39 PM »

In Benedict's Own Words: His Latin Good Friday Prayer

Alexandria · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2010, 02:11:45 PM »

What is going on? Is this man going for broke?

What a slap in the fact to all of the pre-VII popes...poor deluded unenlightened fools...makes you wonder how the Church ever survived until the VII intelligentia came out of the woodwork.

Belloc · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2010, 02:16:54 PM »

"In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought..."

there ya have it then, B16 is product of Modernist revolt and obviously, this was part of his upbringing....we see the plans of 100+ yrs ago well laid and bearing fruit, no?

LM · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2010, 02:29:52 PM »

Quote from: MauricePinay

In Benedict's Own Words: His Latin Good Friday Prayer

Wow, you hit the nail on the head.

from MauricePinay's blog

Quote

I stand by what I wrote of this prayer in February 2008:

... The problem with the new prayer, despite its hearkening to Romans 11;25-26, is that it takes the present-time intention of the original prayer and thrusts it into the realm of mystery and prophesy dealing with the future. The intention and meaning of the original prayer was perfectly clear: Christians pray for the conversion of the Jєωs here and now. Romans 11;25-26 deals with a mystery prophesied to take place in the future at the last days. The message seems to be that we should pray for the end-times to come quickly so the "Jєωs" will convert, and that they don't need Christ in the meantime. This is not, nor has it ever been the position of the Church. The Church always sought the conversion of Jєωs--real and fake "Jєωs" alike--not just at the second coming, but from the Pentecost until the time of the Second Vatican Council--at all times. St. Vincent Ferrer and all of the evangelists knew nothing of the new theology of the "elder brothers." Apparently, he was wrong?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2010, 03:33:27 PM »

AQ'er explains there is nothing to worry about...

Quote

The Pope thus:

a) affirms that Judaism is not salvific;
b) implies that while the new liturgical prayer does not directly call for the missionary conversion of Jєωs - but rather looks forward to their eschatological coming to Christ, as described by St Paul in Romans - the possibility of it doing so indirectly remains.

Quote

1. No he doesn't. He simply says that the new prayer doesn't directly call for a mission of conversion to the Jєωs. The Good Friday prayer does not define the bounds of Catholic praxis, nor is it all the Church has to say regarding Judaism;

2. No he doesn't;

3. No he doesn't. He says that "the formula was such as to truly wound the Jєωs" - i.e. some Jєωs were wounded by the formula. There is no statement re: the intention of those who formulated it, and his other remarks would seem to suggest that he thinks those "wounds" were experienced because, as he explicitly states, Jєωs hold to a non-salvific religion. Not because the formula was theologically wrong. He is not condemning the Church's prayer, but recognising that there may be formulations (such as the one he has chosen) which may help Jєωs approaching the Gospel, especially given some historical events which have occurred since the promulgation of the old form;

4. See my responses 1, 2 and 3.

It is crucial - crucial - that we do not allow the enemies of the Church to seize on the Holy Father's remarks (whether you think them prudent or not, clear or not) and turn them into license for doctrinal error. Reading into his remarks claims that simply aren't there does not help.

Quote

Many innocent Jєωs were killed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by nominal Christians. Jєωιѕн children, Jєωιѕн mothers, Jєωιѕн fathers. They weren't Church-hating villains. Many weren't religious, some were even converts. Yet they were massacred on account of their being ethnically Jєωιѕн, in pogroms and - whether some posters here care to acknowledge it or not - in a brutal programme of state-sponsored slaughter. The Holy Father, as one who grew up under the nαzι tyranny, is sensitive to that, and aware of how much those events shape the self-understanding of contemporary Jєωs who have often jettisoned much of the religious heritage which might otherwise have been used to demonstrate the truth of Christ's claims to them. I think if we care about preaching the Gospel to them, we need to be sensitive to it too - and that's without in any way claiming that non-Jєωιѕн lives are worth less, or that Judaism is salvific, or that history has never seen Jєωιѕн people acting against, even persecuting, the Church. But even those Jєωs who have persecuted the Church can become great saints...

Quote

I am not "guilt-tripping" anyone, unless there are pogrom participants or ex-SS guards on Angelqueen, which I doubt. All I'm saying is that Pope Benedict's desire not to set up unnecessary stumbling blocks to the Jєωs makes sense. It makes sense in view of his personal history, it makes sense in view of recent historical events, and it makes sense given what should be every Catholic's desire to effectively communicate the Gospel. "The mass killing of Jєωs in the twentieth century never happened" is not the Gospel.

If you want to engage in apostolate with Jєωs which opens the conversation with an argument about secular history, history which has no bearing on whether or not the Catholic claim is true, and which insinuates both that their grandparents were likely liars and that respected secular historians are likely Jєωιѕн agents, go ahead. I doubt you'll win many souls for Christ.

For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more. And I became to the Jєωs, a Jєω, that I might gain the Jєωs: To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all. And I do all things for the gospel's sake: that I may be made partaker thereof.

Alexandria · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2010, 03:48:27 PM »

Stevus, are you certain this came from AQ?

A remark like this gem

Quote

it is crucial - crucial - that we do not allow the enemies of the Church to seize on the Holy Father's remarks (whether you think them prudent or not, clear or not) and turn them into license for doctrinal error. Reading into his remarks claims that simply aren't there does not help.

doesn't sound like AQ material. And I can't help but wonder just who this poster considers the "enemy"....

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2010, 03:55:17 PM »

Positive. It is in the thread titled "Pope on Judaism: "there do not exist two ways of salvat"

Anthem · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2010, 04:19:25 PM »

Forgive my strong language, but what the hell else is going to be in this book?

Another thought: It's not a book, it's a wedge.

And another: Are we feeling the quickening of The End?

Another: Is this the penultimate "Pope"? Or perhaps the Pope to usher in the Chastisement of lore?

For myself, all I can say is the pull of the traditional Mass grows stronger.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2010, 04:31:09 PM »

More from the AQ'ers

Quote

Actually this wasn't a 'major public pronouncement'. It was a few sentences in a book of several hundred pages. The passage was deliberately leaked by insiders in advance of the publication of the book.
The Pope was obviously naive in thinking that his Italian publishers, the Libreria Editrice Vaticana and the OR could be trusted, but that still doesn't make it a major public pronouncement either of the Pope personally or the Holy See generally.

The world has changed dramatically in the past 40 years. The 'c' word wasn't even used in polite conversation until fairly recently; but unfortunately, the world has changed and the Pope must address this fact. I doubt he enjoys this any more than we do. One could fault his prudence, but time will tell on that score. I am not convinced that he has created any real confusion. The people who have long rejected Catholic doctrine will continue to do so; and those who accept it are unlikely to misunderstand his words.

Alexandria · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2010, 04:37:26 PM »

Quote

I am not convinced that he has created any real confusion.

What world does he live in and what church does he belong to? Sounds like an escapee from CAF.

There is nothing naive about Benedict. The man is brilliant and knew quite well the furor his words would cause.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2010, 04:39:33 PM »

AQ started going down the crapper when the mods stamped out any criticism of the FSSP! So you can't even criticize Ecclesia Dei communities over there.

All threads that start to get at the heart of interesting theological dialogue are immediately locked.

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2010, 09:23:23 PM »

Quote

Quaeritur: Would you care to possibly comment on this other excerpt about the Jєωs from the book The Light of the World.

Respondeo: This is a better example than the condom comment of a point in which "t goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong," as the Holy Father himself admits in his book. The theologically objectionable point is the claim that the traditional Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs was erroneous because he realized the profound unity of the Old and New Testaments:

"... in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jєωs in a missionary sense."

The rest seems to amount to an unclear and rather circuмlocutious pair of premises that are somehow being offered as support for the above conclusion. The argument contains little discernible propositional content by way of premises; it rather expresses a theologically misguided desire for ecuмenism. (A desire cannot be false in the strict sense, just misguided or disordered.) But one can perhaps boil all that down to the proposition that there is a natural unity between Judaism and Christianity. This seems to be the hidden premise of the argument that he uses to get to the conclusion, i.e., the quote above. Thus, what the Pope offers us is an enthymeme (an implied syllogism), which we can reformulate into an explicit syllogism:

Major Premise: If there is a natural continuity between Judaism and Christianity, then we must not pray for the Jєωs' conversion in a 'missionary sense' --i.e., that they change from a false religion to the one, true religion.
Minor Premise: There is a natural continuity between Judaism and Christianity.
Conclusion: Therefore, we must not pray for the Jєωs' conversion in a 'missionary sense' (as the Old Missal does), but for the perfection of their religion (as the New Missal and Pope Benedict's 'proclamation of the Christian faith' does).

For the sake of precision, allow me to express my refutation of his reasoning as a scholastic distinction:

I concede the major. It is a statement of the self-evident proposition that one cannot convert from religion a to religion b if, in the ultimate analysis, a = b. Conversion (in the 'missionary sense') involves changing religions that are essentially distinct.

I distinguish the minor (i.e., this premise is true in one sense, but false in another). That there is a natural continuity between pre-Christian Judaism and Christianity, I concede; but that there is a natural continuity between modern Judaism and Christianity, I deny. The Holy Father's reasoning is faulty insofar as it does not take into account this important distinction. Pre-Christian Judaism, i.e., the religion of the Old Testament, is essentially the same religion as Christianity, the religion of the New Testament: Christianity is the perfection of pre-Christian Judaism. Pre-Christian Judaism prefigures Christianity; Christianity perfects Pre-Christian Judaism--every bit as much as the Old Testament prefigures the New, and the New perfects the Old.

But post-Christian Judaism, and I specifically mean the religion of the Jєωιѕн race after the destruction of the Temple, is a new religion distinct from the religion of the Old Testament. Judaism, in other words, underwent a sort of substantial change at that point. Not only was it redefined due to the impossibility of observing the Old Law (no Temple, no sacrifice, no Judaism); but also a new, anti-Christian element came into the definition of this new religion. The core of Jєωιѕн belief is no longer merely the awaiting of a Messias, but also the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is NOT that Messias. As a consequence, a modern Jєω who thinks that Jesus IS the Messias is not considered a Jєω by the Jєωs themselves. This shows that modern, i.e., post-Christian Judaism and Christianity are not continuous.

In short, pre-Christian Judaism is pro-Christianity, whereas modern Judaism is anti-Christian.

I distinguish the conclusion: That therefore, we must not pray for the pre-Christians Jєωs' conversion, I concede; but that we must not pray for the modern Jєωs' conversion, I deny. Given the distinction of the minor that I made above, the conclusion can only be true in the sense that we don't pray for the conversion of pre-Christian Jєωs. But they're all dead, so that's obviously not what the Pope means. In the other sense, the sense in which the Holy Father means it--that modern Jєωs cannot convert from their religion to Christianity, and the Old Missal is incorrect in praying for that intention--in this sense the conclusion is false.

The fact that the argument's conclusion is false can be stated positively: modern Judaism is a false religion and modern Jєωs, therefore, have the obligation to abandon their errors and accept the true religion revealed by God through Jesus Christ and the Church; consequently, the traditional liturgy does right in praying for their conversion:

Let us pray also for the perfidious Jєωs: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.
Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jєωιѕн perfidy: 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 Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.

Caritas non nisi in veritate.

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/11/pope-benedicts-confused-opinion-on-Jєωs.html