I've never quite been able to grasp what the Sungenis controversy was all about, but this guy sounds like a whack job. He's been in every denomination, some of his books don't have an imprimatur, he believes in geocentrism (??????!!!!!!!!) and you consider him a Catholic apologist? In whose universe? He's an embarrassment. His views on the Jews make him just another anti-Semite. That's a disgrace. Galileo Was Wrong - that's just laughable. His views on the Jews are not a laughing matter, however. They were the first to hear the Word of God. Why should we be grateful to him for renouncing views that no one should hold, least of all a Catholic?
The problem is: anyone can call themselves a "Catholic apologist" and go out and do such in the name of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, there is not enough oversight as to who is doing this or what their credentials are. The Catholic Church in America has a serious problem with such untutored "apologists," often with followings, who are not well-versed in Church teachings or who mis-represent Church teachings. The notion that we need to go out and proclaim the Gospel is fine, but we either need better apologists or we need to stand down until we get them.
All I can say is: this newest crop is far from the likes of Irenaeus of Lyons.
Janice, Go to the Catechism and look up "rash judgment" and read it.
You have serious problems you need to deal with.
No Brian, on this one you are completely out of line. Sungenis is also out of line with respect to the Jews. He also sounds like his elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. And the Catholic Church can't be so in need of "apologists" that we need a looney like this one.
If Sungenis was anyone else, without the fancy "apologist" title, you'd call him a simpleminded anti-Semite bigot.
Since you're so smart, Brian, why don't you look up The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (Vatican City, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2001, forward by Cardinal Ratzinger), which says that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one. Here's the quotations: "for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible (#22)."
By the way, you'd better check with Pope Benedict, too. He's written that the Jewish covenant was never abrogated, but fulfilled in Christ (Many Religions, One Covenant). If there are elements of sanctification and holiness in the ecclesial bodies of those who apostatized from the Church (i.e., Protestants), then there are also those same elements in the Jewish Faith, the proponents of which were the first to hear the Word of God.
Janice, The same elements as Protestants? With the exception of Holy Baptism (which is necessary for salvation) and the New and Eternal Testament of the Lord Jesus Christ! The elements they retain are not salvific. Some elements.
Janice,
Respectfully. You are looney and off your rocker.
Going around calling someone names is not mature nor a Christian way of handling things.
Take the meds. I don't even know what you are attempting to argue with the document you cite.
You obviously do not believe the thrice-defined dogma, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation."
You are wearying...
Can Sungenis ever produce a document that is less that 5 pages long? He is the most wordy person I know.
Brian,
Robert Sungenis is an anti-Semite, period. He just disguises it with a lot of fancy talk.
All of his nonsense about the Jews is answered by the sources I cited.
His bibliography is pathetic. He reminds me of Bishop Ussher.
He should not be an apologist for the Church.
Is this clear enough for you or should I use simpler words?
This is a depressing debate. Janice is obviously right in saying that Sungenis is i) off his rocker and ii) sinned through anti-Semitism. The fact that he is a geocentrist suffices to establish i); obviously as well as being irrational he is driven by a desire to irritate people. The material on his website about Jews, which I had a look at (I gather it will now be taken down), exudes hatred of them.
On the other hand, Janice is obviously wrong in saying 'If there are elements of sanctification and holiness in the ecclesial bodies of those who apostatized from the Church (i.e., Protestants), then there are also those same elements in the Jewish Faith, the proponents of which were the first to hear the Word of God.' There can't be the same elements, since Protestants (except liberal ones) believe in the divinity of Christ and the divine inspiration of the New Testament! Aren't those elements of sanctification? In fact what Sungenis says about the Jews in his document discussing his conversations with his bishop is all uncontroversially true and part of the Catholic faith, except for his statements in his #6 to the effect that most Jews today reject Christ through their own fault (how does he know this?) and that no mass conversion of Jews is to be expected in the future (an inappropriately negative remark from an apologist, and on the face of it contrary to what St. Paul says in Romans). It is in fact on the whole a good document on his part that should be welcomed as a step forward.
Sungenis has some very solid stuff. And some wacked stuff. But I'd just as soon read his material as Rahner's. As for being wordy, who could be wordier than Vatican II?!
I also don't know where the Church has said this:
"The present occupation of the land of Palestine by Jews who migrated there from different parts of the world beginning in 1948 is not a fulfillment of positive divine prophecy from either the Old or the New Testaments. It is strictly a political movement engineered by the powers of the world."
I don't think the Church has taken a position one way or the other on this issue.
Sungenis' statement is a good step forward and hopefully others will follow. In particular, it would be appropriate for him to offer apologies to people like Schoeman and Moss. Statements like this deserve a retraction, not simply to be removed from his website:
"I suggest my critics start listening to what I am saying about the anti-Christ, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian influence that various Jewish organizations are having on us, including but not limited to ... the Association of Hebrew Catholics ( e.g., David Moss, Roy Schoeman, etc.), and any other such organization that puts Jewish political, religious and social interests above those of the Catholic faith and the rest of the world." (Sungenis, Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL, p. 5, emphasis added)
Apologies for his *manner* of expression will not suffice for the many offenses he has committed.
But perhaps he deserves a little time to cogitate on what has happened with his bishop. It is no small thing that his bishop stepped in and gave him a directive to remove his Jewish writings. Perhaps with the movement of grace, he will more fully embrace what he has been told, in time.
Rahner was an apostate who is now in the lower depths of hell! Of course Sungenis is better than him, but that's saying virtually nothing.
the first to hear the Word of God.
Janice, your use of a capital letter suggests something that isn't quite true. The Word of God is a Person: Jesus the Messiah.
And technically, Romulus, the Jews were the first he preached to. Many of them rejected Him of course.
Romulus,
I don't understand your point exactly. Could you clarify?
Wasn't the voice in the burning bush also that of the Word of God?
And didn't the Word of God first preach to the Jews when He became man?
Ooops...missed your comment, Andrew. But ditto. 
Janice and John,
I'm certain that Mr. Sungenis, tried by the likes of you two, as judge and jury, really cares a lot about your rash judgment.
Please define "anti-Semitism."
No one who believes that Jews must convert to Catholicism to be saved is an anti-Semite.
That is the gist of Sungenis's and E. Michael Jones' arguments.
They lay out the facts as they are. Judaism is anti-Christian and anti-Christ. Any 5-year-old can understand that.
It takes no guts and no brains and no discernment whatsoever to go around calling someone an anti-Semite.
But those who do such things (and the media is GREAT at this) never define what it means. I wonder why...
Judge and jury=rash judgment and libelous statements.
"Just look at what he has written and you'll see..." I'm certain you will say.
Define what an anti-Semite is and define anti-Semitism.
Nobody ever does.
I'll offer mine. Read Fr. Fahey. It is the Gospel definition.
Brian, is it anti-semitic to reprint essays on the "Jewish threat" from openly white-supremicist websites?
Is it anti-semitic to insist (despite evidence to the contrary) that people who defend Jewish converts are secretly Jewish or of Jewish descent?
Is it anti-semitic to blame communism on Judaism?
Is it anti-semitic to blame Jews for pornography?
How about writing mocking songs about the "Fear of the Jews"?
Just wondering. If you are really a good journalist, you'd perhaps look at the facts before jumping to the defense of what has become a rather indefensible position, from the Roman Catholic point of view.
I am somewhat surprised to see such comments here after reading Dr. Blosser's article about Mr. Sungenis retracting questionable materials (as well as Mr. Sungenis' statement) concerning Jewish issues from his website ending with the comment, "Mr. Sungenis deserves our gratitude for this gesture and our prayers for fortification in his resolution to remain faithful to Mother Church. Deo Gratias." Regardless of what his personal views are concerning Jews, Moslems, Communists, Protestants, or the little old lady living in the apartment over the market, regardless of his geocentric views which modern science rejects (although I do see his point on a pure mathematical notion-if the universe is an infinite plane, then any point you pick will be the center including the earth), here is a loyal son of the Church who accepted discipline from one of our appointed Shepherds. That should count for something instead of caustic tit-for-tats that is being bandied about. It should be an occasion for thankfulness not an occasion to bash Mr. Sungenis' views. He could have just as easily gone the Matatics route and left the Church denying that the Catholic Church is really the Catholic Church anymore, or defied or ignored his bishop like so many so-called Catholic politicians and other ala carte Catholics these days, or play the victim saying "look at the mean people for picking on me".
The discourse in this comment section can be used as an exemplar of what Jesus meant when he called the Pharisees "whited sepulchres". Some of the people who inhabit the comment section of this blog can be some of the most uncharitable, unsympathetic, unforgiving people out there.
Please, no more! If you can't say words out of kindness and Christian love then you should not offer your opinion. Take it from one who regrets engaging in similar behavior recently. It is possible to challenge another's views without attacking the person.
Echoing the last line from Mary Stuart's prayer, " O Lord God, let us not forget to be kind!"
I can't add to that. Sungenis is a cheap racist and an anti-Semite. The Catholic Church should do to him what the Republican party did to David Duke - it should repudiate him.
Brian, Judaism is not anti-Christian and anti-Christ. I am seldom really shocked, but I must say I am shocked by your comment and it goes against Christian teaching to speak in this way about our elder brothers in the faith. You probably don't know this, but in the early Christian world, Jews like Philo of Alexandria and the Maccabees were regarded as saints. There are frescoes of the Maccabees in early Christian churches. Not to mention, of course, John the Baptist, Abraham (our Father in faith), the OT patriarchs. These people are our family and we remember especially at the Easter Vigil when we trace our salvation history.
Not to mention the fact that we get the outlines and a good part of the content of our liturgy from the Jews. Not to mention the Jewish heritage of our ethnics and morality. I could go on and on and on .....
By the way, Brian, I hope you're not one of our "Christian" apologists. If you are, please crawl back under the rock you came from.
Mr. Hoffer,
Don't be so condescending and sanctimonious. A person's views ARE his person. Do you really mean to say that a person's thoughts are separate from his essence? Sungenis' stupid anti-Semitism is not part of who he is? There's no daylight between Sungenis as a person and the views he holds. It's a false dichotomy. And not only are people free to criticize it; in this particular case, Christians are OBLIGATED to criticize it. Sungenis took the materials down at the request of his bishop, not because he had a change of heart. Therefore, I don't see the big conversion here. He's not an admirable man. I don't think it's especially unChristian to criticize him. The Jews don't need any more trouble than Christians have already caused them and any time we can call someone on their anti-Semitic behavior, we are serving the greater good.
Contemporary Jews aren't our elder brothers in the faith, since they don't have the faith. Brian, you say that 'No one who believes that Jews must convert to Catholicism to be saved is an anti-Semite.' This is obviously true, but it is not the case that Sungenis's former positions on the Jews, and E. Michael Jones's current ones, amount to saying no more than that. Anti-Semitism, as I will define it, consists in falsely accusing Jews of willing and doing serious evil. Sungenis's material has been removed from his website, so I can't give evidence beyond my memory of its contents; in any case, since he has withdrawn this material at the bequest of his bishop, I will not pursue the question of its anti-Semitism. I would point out however that the view that Jews should convert to Catholicism was not withdrawn, but was incorporated into his statement about his meeting with the bishop. It therefore cannot be described as the grounds for accusations of anti-Semitism against him.
As for E. Michael Jones being an anti-Semite; this is obvious. Here is an excerpt from his writings;
'As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews” the minute they rejected Christ. As such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making. Thirty years after rejecting Christ, the revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar [sic], one of their many messiahs, and tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome they attemtped to destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias.'
The idea that the only Jewish identity of those Jews who reject Christ is negative, is contrary to what St. Paul says about unbelieving Jews in the epistle to the Romans. Rejecting the Logos - i.e. Christ - is not the same as rejecting reason and order. Rejecting Christ means rejecting supernatural grace, and does not mean rejecting natural reason. Jews are not all determined enemies of Christ; practising orthodox Jews are not interested in Christ or Christianity - they simply want to have nothing to do with it. The idea that Jews are enemies of the social order as such, and that they are constantly conspiring to destroy it, is an obvious and monstrous lie. Asserting it makes Jones an anti-Semite. Consider his talking about 'the character assassins and apologists for usury, pornography and other Jewish forms of social control.' The idea that usury and pornography are Jewish plots is another obviously false and evil lie - a mentally unbalanced one as well.
(These quotations are from http://www.culturewars.com/2007/...07/Francis.htm)
.
Mr. Mershon,
One hopes your comments about Sungenis arise from an ignorance of what he has actually written and posted at his website. And as to the definition of anti-Semitism, I don't particularly care. His actions are bigoted. Call it anti-Semitism or not.
Still, how about the Oxford English Dictionary for a beginning?
OED: Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-'Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se'mitic
I agree that it is unfortunate we cannot at least be mildly pleased for a while that Sungenis has expressed his intention to cease his Jewish postings at the direction of his bishop. But when people make the kinds of comments that Mr. Mershon just made here, they invite one to ask a larger question: is this just about Sungenis?
It would seem the answer is "no." There are apparently more Catholics who hold similarly bigoted ideas. Here are a few statements to consider:
1) "The charge of anti-Semitism is nothing but a clever ploy"
2) "A telltale sign in the movie industry of the shift in mores was demonstrated no better than in the Walt Disney Corporation. Founder Walter Disney was well-known in the 50s and 60s for wholesome family entertainment. Interestingly enough,
Walt had a policy of not hiring Jewish people.”
3) “I have many Jewish friends who think the Zionists are absolutely insane. I'm not worried about them. They have enough sense to know their place…”
4) "Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately,Judaism tends to be, because real Judaism considers all
non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews.”
5)"The Jews...do intend to rule the world. And now the problem is that they wantto rule the Catholic Church, too."
6) "Are the Protocols (of the Elders of Zion) forged? I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a lot of reason to believe that there are certain people, yes, the Jews, who would like us all to believe that they are forged."
7) "You know, the thing about Bill Clinton was, you know, he tried to secure this peace accord between Israel and the Arabs and wasn't successful with that, and he did some other things that the Jews didn't like, because he got some power under him and he thought he could, you know, do whatever he wanted and then they, you know, they sent Monica Lewinski in there after him, you know, and brought him down."
“when (Jews) come into power…they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth."
You can find all of these and more at http://www.sungenisandthejews.co...m/
Section2.html
Fortunately, Sungenis had the good sense to comply with his bishop's directions and will stop the attack on Jews. Perhaps a few others could learn from his example.
I don't understand your point exactly. Could you clarify?
Dear Anonymous: my point is that Word of God is the Logos, the Eternal Word, the second person of the holy Trinity, incarnate as Jesus Christ. Unlike fallen man, God does all things perfectly. When He speaks, his Word is his very substance, so that to hear or look upon the Word is to behold God Himself.
it goes against Christian teaching to speak in this way about our elder brothers in the faith.
Janice, in Holy Scripture, older brothers come off rather badly, the least of which being that the favor and preference they expect passes to the younger brother. This is not just a coincidence. Referring to the Jews as our older brothers is prophetically apt, but it's far more than sentimentalism or a tip of the hat. It's recognition of God's plan.
Romulus, please get a life.
That all you got, Janice? You make me sad. =(
Janice, I am sorry if you feel that suggesting that all concerned should display a Christian attitude is condescending and sanctimonious. I do not disagree that views of a fellow Christian and Catholic which seem to be contrary to the teaching of the Church should be criticized and refuted. However, the thrust of Dr. Blosser's article is that we should be grateful that Mr. Sungenis obeyed the request of his Bishop which is somewhat of a rarity these days.
In many of your comments both here and in response to other articles, you seem to be nursing a very large grudge against other Catholics on a variety of issues (I am presuming that you are Catholic based on the tenor of your responses). You don't like converts who engage in apologetics, you don't like Mr. Sungenis because you perceive that he is anti-Jewish, you think that I am being condescending and sanctimonious because I asked that all to make their comments in a charitable spirit. You appear to have some sort of issue in judging the Catholicity of others that borders on pathological. I am not saying this to be mean, but as one Catholic Christian to another I am asking you to reflect on how Mt. 7:4-5 may apply to your words.
It is obvious that you disagree with Mr. Sungenis' world view and politics. For the most part, I think I do as well. But to be frank, I have seen rhetoric similar to Mr. Sungenis used by Jewish anti-Zionists for years. Additionally, from what I have read on Mr. Sugenis' blog, he has always made it clear that he hopes that Jewish people are saved by accepting Christ, a sentiment that certainly conforms to the teaching of the Church. And from some of the things that I read in studying the early fathers of the Church, they had no problem saying the same things that Mr. Sungenis has said in the past and many of those guys are canonized as saints.
I guess all I am saying is that since Mr. Sungenis is taking the offensive material off of his website, it is a moment that should be applauded and encouraged. It takes a courageous man to admit that he was in the wrong and Mr. Sungenis did just that. He should be remembered in our prayers instead of being held up to Pharisaic scorn.
Mr. Hoffer,
It's too bad you don't see the offense created by Sungenis against the Jews as going beyond the ordinary. It's not a small thing. It's all well and good to be "charitable" toward people who lapse, but Catholics who lapse to the degree that Sungenis has against the Jews need to do more repentance than simply saying they will follow their bishop. He hasn't said he repudiates the tenor and content of the articles he posted and that is really the neuralgic issue here and his offense is not covered by "anti-Zionism," either. He's a typical anti-Semite who's using "anti-Zionism" as a cover for something that we have experienced in recent history, both as people and as Catholics. It's cheap to call it Pharisaic scorn. It would be more to the point if Sungenis did some actual penance.
Janice,
Judge and jury.
You should really read the Sacred Scriptures more often and stop trying to define for everyone else what "offensive," "demeaning," "bigoted" and "anti-Semitic" language is.
You never want to deal with the facts or the arguments. You just want other people not to say things you disagree with. This is the beginning of totalitarianism Janice.
It is also flied directly in the face of the Church Fathers, whom are the standard for which we are to interpret Sacred Scripture according to the Credo from the Council of Trent.
Brian,
You can huff and puff all you want, but you've also been revealed for the fellow traveller you are. If you support Sungenis, then you are as bad and complicit as he is. The Church does not support any of the things you said. If you doubt me, check with the Pope.
I don't know Janice. What things do you think that I said the Church supports that it does not?
You paint with a broad brush. With an emphasis on the "broad."
Check out the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, Janice.
You are are a detractor, slanderer and calumniator.
As I said, Brian. Huff and puff. You're indicted by your own words.
I'll just reproduce a response from a previous participant:
Brian, is it anti-semitic to reprint essays on the "Jewish threat" from openly white-supremicist websites?
Is it anti-semitic to insist (despite evidence to the contrary) that people who defend Jewish converts are secretly Jewish or of Jewish descent?
Is it anti-semitic to blame communism on Judaism?
Is it anti-semitic to blame Jews for pornography?
How about writing mocking songs about the "Fear of the Jews"?
Just wondering. If you are really a good journalist, you'd perhaps look at the facts before jumping to the defense of what has become a rather indefensible position, from the Roman Catholic point of view.
John Herreid
Right on girl,being fulfilled does not abragate.
"He's written that the Jewish covenant was never abrogated, but fulfilled in Christ (Many Religions, One Covenant)."
Dear Janice,
I happen to agree with you on one of your main points of contention here, but these shrill, frantic posts are not helping anyone.
Mr. Mershon,
If you would like to voice your concerns to me in private, my e-mail address is pugiofidei@yahoo.com
Mr. Douglass,
"Shrill and frantic" only means that you don't agree with me. Anti-semitism is beginning to see a resurgence in Europe. Sungenis doesn't help with his anti-semitic posts. Mershon doesn't help by supporting Sungenis.
Janice,
I don't see that Mr. Douglass' criticism translates into disagreement with the substance of your points. It seems to me that he disagrees with your manner of expression.
However, not everyone reacts the same way, nor should they have to. I don't think you are unjustified in being very upset and expressing that. What Sungenis has written is quite ugly in many respects. And perhaps it is not so bad thing at least for people to see such strong reactions to this kind of bigotry. But for other people, your strong reactions may have the effect of turning them away. Perhaps that is what Mr. Douglass is concerned about?
That said, as the bishop has now entered into the mix, I do see a certain wisdom in keeping the discourse measured and allowing him some time. Certainly, if people like Mr. Mershon didn't make light of the ugliness and excuse it as he has, it would be easier to do so.
My $.02
I also am much in favor of letting the talks with the bishop continue without a lot of speculation on the side. But I am disappointed enough to see Mr. Mershon, whom I know at least by reputation, so breezily taking this defending stance, that I feel compelled to speak up. I choose to believe that this defense can only be because he hasn't really read about the controversy in detail.
At least in terms of definitions of anti-Semitism and the like, those have been addressed in detail long ago:
http://
sungenisandthejews.blogsp...fficulties.html
And if the seven points outlined in Sungenis' latest piece were all that had been ever been put out by CAI on Jewish issues, this whole controversy would not have broken out. It seems to betray a huge ignorance of what has transpired for Mr. Mershon to think that those points are what has prompted so many to raise serious concerns about the former material at CAI.
Brian, as with Ben Douglass, if you have specific questions about why we have expended the energy we have in this latest controversy you are free to contact me at djpalm64@yahoo.com
Top French Catholic prelate dies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europ...ope/
6932488.stm
==
Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
To everyone who thinks I have had an overly "shrill" and untoward reaction toward Sungenis' publication of materials relating to the Jews on his website:
In view of the profound violation of the Jews throughout history and recently in the 20th century, I don't think anyone can react enough when anti-Semitism resurfaces. My own field of study is patristics and so I have a great deal of interest in the ecumenical and interreligious dialogue with both Jews and Orthodoxy. Since the 1960s there has been a great deal of effort to begin to atone for the Christian offenses against the Jews and to begin to speak to them as our elder brothers in the faith. When one considers the recent death of Cardinal Lustiger, whose own mother died at Auschwitz, or the work of Joseph Ratzinger in convenantal theology, or the thousands of others who have worked to root out anti-Semitism, I find it offensive to support, with silence, the poisoning of the well by Sungenis, or anyone else, who resurrects the old, anti-Semitic canards of previous generations.
I understand your reaction. Now let us also pray for Mr. Sungenis...for his good and for the good of everyone else.
Peace.
Janice:
I take second place to nobody in opposition to Sungenis' track record of anti-semitism and increasingly irrational hostility to Jews. My blog has been chronicling and opposing Sungenis on this matter for years. I agree with you completely that Mershon is clearly trying to soft-peddle what Sungenis has been up to.
That said, Douglass is right. Not only on this thread, but on most threads you are indeed shrill. Give it a rest.
Brian Mershon writes:
"Respectfully. You are looney and off your rocker. Going around calling someone names is not mature nor a Christian way of handling things."
Does anyone else see anything funny about those statements?
Mr. Shea,
I find it ironic that you of all people would accuse someone of being shrill, given your record of castigating people and name-calling. You yourself should give it a rest and perhaps give your blog a rest. It's just a way to vent your perpetual spleen.
"Since the 1960s there has been a great deal of effort to begin to atone for the Christian offenses against the Jews and to begin to speak to them as our elder brothers in the faith."
Interesting theology. I thought that the only people who could atone for sins are the people who commit them and then repent (I doubt most of the atrocities committed against the Jewish race were by practicing Catholics, but nonetheless...) and Jesus Christ Himself.
I didn't know that "apologies" decades later from those of us who are so much wiser and holier than our predecessors mean much for "atonement" in the eyes of God. Only those who repent of their sins can be forgiven. Interesting theology nonetheless.
I'm wondering if anyone has read the headlines lately. Have their been any "sins of the Jews" committed against Catholics? I'm wondering...
And another thing, how can the Jewish people be "our elder brethren in the faith" when they do not have "the Faith?"
Anyone? Janice. Please define anti-semitism. Let me guess. It is one of those things "You know whey you see it," right?
Brian, remember what Abraham Lincoln said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt," although in your case I think the ship has sailed.
You might reread the Good Friday petitions, particularly this one:
"Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Silent prayer) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen."
Tell me where is says here that God has abrogated His covenant to the Jews. It simply says that we hope they will arrive at the fullness of redemption, not that their covenant with the Lord has been abolished.
Anything to say, smart guy?
Brian,
You would also benefit from reading Joseph Ratzinger's "Many Religions, One Covenant." You'd learn something about God's covenant and how it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It did not mean that the Jews were cast out, for starters.
Try reading some theology, for a change, rather than the questionable screeds you apparently feed on. You'll be surprised at the results.
Mark Shea,
Lincoln's quotation applies to you, too.
There is some impressively juvenile discourse going on here. Can Janice really write posts like this and honestly believe that she isn't "shrill"?
As for defining anti-semitism, I don't think anybody here has done a decent job of it. Why not simply say that anti-semitism is a hatred of and opposition to Jews as such? The 'as such' bit is crucial; hating a person who just happens to be Jewish is pretty bad, but it isn't anti-semitic; opposing a person who just happens to be Jewish may be right or wrong depending on what's being opposed, but it isn't anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is hatred and opposition to Jews *as Jews*. Accordingly, it need not be anti-semitic even to claim that the Jewish covenant has been 'abrogated,' that the Jews cannot be saved unless they convert, etc. It is possible to believe those things without hating Jews or opposing them. Of course, insofar as one wants them to cease to be Jews simply and become Christians, one might be said to 'oppose' their Jewishness. But I think we can see that such opposition, if it is opposition, differs substantially from the sort that Sungenis and his ilk spew forth.
On the other hand, there is no sense to the suggestion that anti-semitism is nothing but a label that people use to defend the Jews. There really are plenty of people out there who despise Jews just for being Jewish. Those people often say patently ridiculous things, though of course they also say other things that might be arguably true. What should be clear to any reasonable person, Christian or not, is that hating and opposing Jews as such is indefensible. They are human beings and deserve to be respected as such. It is their fundamental humanity and their capacity for goodness that makes them worthy of respect whatever we think about the status of their covenant or their beliefs and attitudes towards anything under the Sun. This is why Janice was wrong when she tried to deny any distinction whatsoever between a person and "his views." If there were no difference, then adopting different "views" would make me a different person altogether, and not merely in some metaphorical sense. People are not simply identical to their views; behind every conjunction of views there is a person with the capacity to change those views and to see things the right way. A person with despicable views still deserves some modicum of respect simply because he is a person.
That said, it is probably worth reminding everyone of what we no doubt already know: that a lack of respect is the thing least likely to bring someone to change their views and most likely to lead them to close their eyes to what we have to say. Why not strive to maintain some level of respect, then?
Kathy, using a pseudonym while retaining your writing style isn't terribly clever. That and your "fraternal correction" nonsense.
Kathy,
Continuing to respond to your half-witted comments: I'm not interested in changing the minds of those who defend Sungenis' postings on his blog. They're basically lost, anyway. If the past sixty years haven't been enough to "change their minds" nothing I say will do it.
In addition, you're the last one to talk about respecting another person. Your posts in the last few months had no respect for other people in them at all. This Pollyanna-ish countenance you've taken on is pure hypocrisy.
Impressed, I disagree in regard to the definition of anti-Semitism. I provided one from the most authoritative English dictionary in existence, the Oxford English Dictionary.
And another poster left this link that deals in depth with the issue of this definition, listing multiple sources and discussing the issue at length.
Here it is, scroll to the last third of the article.
http://
sungenisandthejews.blogsp...fficulties.html
Well, "Impressed," for your parsing of the word "anti-Semitism," it seems that you haven't succeeded. It's like Bill Clinton and the definition of "is."
Janice, "His covenant" is not solely their covenant, the Old Testament.
This prayer is about the conversion of the Jews to the one, true Faith of Jesus Christ, outside of which holiness and salvation can be found.
Second, with a master's in theology from a reputable and well-known Catholic college and seminary, I have read something other than screeds. However, thanks for taking upon the role as my self-appointed spiritual director to recommend reading material to me. You really have no idea.
And having written a thesis on how the Kingship of Christ is still in effect and how Dignitatis Humanae and the post-Conciliar encyclicals harmonize with the traditional teaching that Christ is King. He is King of the Jews too, by the way.
The "Father's covenant" happens to be the same as ours. It includes the New. In fact, the New supersedes the Old and is fulfilled in the Old. And as long as Jewish religion adherents reject that, then the ultimate results, both on Earth and in the after-life will be obvious to anyone who takes Sacred Scripture seriously.
Many of the Jews, especially those in the media for the past 60 years, are anti-Christian. They reject Christ and His teachings and blame Him and Christians for all of the trials and tribuations and chastisements they have received.
I'm more concerned about upholding and defending the Faith of Jesus Christ than continuing to participate in the orchestrated media circus that magnifies nearly every complaint a Jewish religious adherent has against Christianity, the Pope or the Mass.
Janice, your bombacity, arrogance and getting involved in other people's business that is not yours is mind-numbing. You really need to find something to do.
Should read of course: "This prayer is about the conversion of the Jews to the one, true Faith of Jesus Christ, outside of which holiness and salvation can NOT be found."
And by the way, Janice, I try not to go to the Novus Ordo when I am able to avoid it.
The prayer for the conversion of the Jews, the faithless people, is much clearer and direct in the Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great. I think more people understand its meaning too. It is clear, where the Novus Ordo prayer, as you apparently have, can be easily misinterpreted as to its meaning.
Brian,
You are the "faithless" one. The Jews are part of us and always will be and we are part of them. Their heritage is ours. And your remark about "orchestrated media circus that magnifies nearly every complaint a Jewish religious adherent has against Christianity, the Pope or the Mass" is repulsive and both anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic.
What exactly is wrong with my treatment of anti-semitism? One person suggests that it's wrong because it doesn't correspond with a dictionary definition. Dictionaries attempt to be primarily descriptive and only secondarily prescriptive, if at all. The word 'anti-semitism' has a tremendous number of uses, and we wouldn't be having this discussion if those uses were all clear, consistent, and obvious. So, when I offer a definition, I'm certainly not trying to capture the way that people use the word. Rather, I'm trying to define the core of what many people object to, or at least what it seems legitimate to me to object to. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if my definition needed refinement or turns out to be wholly inadequate. But pointing to a dictionary definition isn't going to show that.
As for Janice's comment, I'm sure that she knows more than I do about anti-semitism, so maybe she's right that I haven't succeeded. If I haven't succeeded, though, then I obviously don't know why not. If she doesn't tell me why I haven't succeeded or what's wrong with my attempt, then neither I nor anyone who finds my conception of the word intuitively correct will be any more enlightened. If she could explain my mistake, maybe I would be. If the only thing to say to someone who is mistaken is that they're mistaken, why say anything at all?
The refusal to respect people whose minds might change on the grounds that "they" haven't changed and are basically already lost strikes me as based on two mistakes. The first is assimilating individuals to groups. Just because somebody has a horrendous opinion and many people with that opinion have not changed their minds doesn't mean that no particular individual with that opinion could possibly change his mind. Conversion happens. Christianity is based on that fact. Christianity also calls us to the virtue of hope, and it seems to me that giving people up as 'lost' is a violation of that virtue. I wouldn't expect anybody to be unreasonably optimistic, but aren't we called to hope, not to mention love, by the very foundations of the faith?
As for the suggestion that I am somebody called Kathy writing under a psuedonym, I can assure you that I've never posted here before. If I write like somebody like Kathy, that's just because there are at least two long-winded, hypotaxis obsessed creatures out there, and I am one of them. I'm not posting here to attack people, much less to disrespect them. I'm just trying to add what I think are valuable ideas to the conversation. I know from long experience that my judgment of what makes a valuable contribution to a conversation isn't always correct, but in that case I hope to come away learning something. But I can't learn anything if all I get in response are flat, unsupported dismissals and references to dictionary entries.
So, what's wrong with my definition of anti-semitism, exactly? What does it leave out? What does it add tha
What does it add that it shouldn't? I suspect that different people involved in this discussion have very different reasons for faulting it. What are they?
Brian, are you actually arguing that what Sungenis has written (link above) is NOT anti-semitic? That talking about violent Jews who intend to take over the world is not anti-semitic? Are you actually arguing this and do you think this sort of bile actually belongs on a site that calls itself Catholic?
I'm glad this stuff is off his website and I'm making no prophecy about his whether or not he had a change of heart. What I'm saying Brian is that you don't seem to have a problem with the material and I find that disturbing.
Pat
Pat, what I personally find disturbing and insulting to intelligence is that one person in this entire long, sorry string of calumny and detraction and rash judgment has finally posted a definition of "anti-semitism."
I guess you happen to be among those who think "I know anti-Semitism when I see it," and I'm not buying it.
When you or someone else wants to provide comments on the definition of anti-Semitism that is provided, then perhaps we can discuss.
If someone is "anti-Semitic," then I am certain he will be open to admitting it.
But this common, everyday, let the media lead us what is "offensive speech" B.S. that I see on this thread and elsewhere DAILY is not going to cut it for me.
If we're going to censor people, let's start with all of the hysterics who cry "anti-Semitism" every time they see something written about the Jewish religion in a negative light.
Let's define what we are really talking about here. You want to condemn Robert Sungenis and others, be my guest. I'm not playing that game.
Let's get back to Thomistic basics. A definition has been provided, but not Janice nor anyone else is willing to comment. Quite revealing...
Janice, perhaps a basics course in the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
The Jewish religion does not qualify for the theological virtue of Faith.
You do not qualify for the theological virtue of Charity. But without Faith,(which you seem to indicate the Jewish religion possesses even though it rejects Christ) there is no charity.
Perhaps that explains your personal and cutting and repetitive nonsensical and hysterical outbursts. Either that, or you are trying to show everyone just how passionate and out of control a woman who speaks without reason can be. I dunno.
Brian,
You're an idiot and an anti-Semite. You're a disgrace to the Catholic Church.
Thank you Janice! Might I have another?
For those of you interested in dogmatic definitions that Catholics are required to hold by FAITH, here is one by a famous Pope. Must be an anti-Semite, huh Janice? An idiotic one too.
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Brian,
Don't continue to reveal your ignorance. A citation from an early modern Pope is probably not the best one to go with. Are you repudiating Dominus Iesus? Are you repudiating Nostra aetate? More to the point: are you the one who will decide who is saved and who is not? I thought that was up to Almighty God.
Again, please read Many Religions, One Covenant by Joseph Ratzinger. When it comes to citations from Popes, I'll go with him anytime.
I will read Nostra Aetate and Dominus Jesus in light of Tradition--just like you keep talking about.
Dogma doesn't change. It doesn't develop. This is a dogmatic definition. The others you cite are mere explanatory texts that are not as authoritative as the one you cite.
Simple theological clarity on the level of authority of documents. I do not reject Nostra Aetate. It doesn't say much. Many people read into it things it does not say. Dominus Jesus is clear when read in light of the post I cited.
Vatican II in light of Tradition. The dogmatic definition I cited is Tradition and infallible and dogmatic.
Bishop Fellay: Summorum Pontificum "very significant historical event"
Pope Benedict affirms Cardinal Castrillón interviews: SSPX within the Church
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum.../mershon/
070816
Brian Mershon
August 16, 2007
==
Brian Mershon wrote: "Vatican II in light of Tradition."
Yes, I agree.
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal..."
From: Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 (The Council of Florence).
Yes, and the above Bull must be read in the light of later Church teaching as well, such as "QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines) Pope Pius IX" (see below) and other documents, including those of Vatican II. Not to do so could put one of the path of Father Leonard J. Feeney.
http://www.catholicculture.org/l....cfm?
recnum=963
==
Continued...
Pope Pius IX wrote:
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ency...yc/
p9quanto.htm
==
Continued....
Is this all 'ambiguous'? As an aside, Fr. William Most has an interesting comment on the above material/teaching from Pius IX:
"Tragically, Leonard Feeney cited this text of Pius IX, and, in effect,
ridiculed it and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in
Thomas M. Sennott, , Catholic Treasures,
Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06): "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism..."."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRI...TUR/
INFANT2.TXT
==
Ooops! Should be:
"Not to do so could put one *on* the path..."
==
Does Pope Pius IX contradict the Bull Cantate Domino? The teachings of Catholicism are not always as clear as some would like. In my opinion, the belief and charges by some traditionalists (like the SSPX) that Vatican II is "ambiguous" (or in error) on certain points, because it seems to them (and others like the radical liberals) to contradict previous Church teachings of the Catholic Tradition, might be cleared up to some degree (to start with) by an examination of the history of dogmas, their development and expression of the Church's Faith over time.
==
expression/communication
==
history of dogmas, doctrines and teachings
==
From a very early age, the natural human desire to feel special by *belonging* to something special is too often achieved by means of denigration, intimidation and public exclusion of those who do not *belong*.
This is the "clique" mentality. We are special largely in large part *because you are not one of us.* I'm in, you're not.
While those leaning toward universalism obviously present their own set of serious problems, I sometimes get the sense from certain radical traditionalist Catholics that they are secretly *pleased* that so many human beings do not visibly belong to the Church and are in eternal danger, that this gives them a heightened sense of self-importance.
And I suspect that non-Catholics who read what they have to say are far more likely to perceive them in such an antogonistic, uninviting way than I.
There are enough legitimate obstacles that potential converts *must* overcome, we ought not to erect more for them. If such radically traditionalist Catholics genuinely desire the salvation of all men, as our Lord Himself desires, this approach does not readily attest to and serve that desire.
"The prayer for the conversion of the Jews, the faithless people, is much clearer and direct in the Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great."
The Jews of today are much farther removed from the fathers of their schism than the Protestants are from theirs. Two thousand years vs. five hundred. So, shall we insist on the inclusion of a prayer for the "Protestants, the faithless people?"
Logically, the average Lutheran of today is far less likely to intentionally, and with full knowledge completely reject the Roman Pontiff than Martin Luther and his contemporaries. How much more so might this be the case with Jews or any other non-Christian group, for that matter?
Those who reject the successors to the Apostles reject Christ, if one is to be equally strict about this with Protestants as some are here with Jews.
Unlike the Jews of Christ's day, the Catholic-schismatics of the Reformation had the fullness of God's grace available to them through the New Covenant. Wouldn't that suggest that their schism is more egregious than that of the first century schismatics, those Jews who did not believe in Christ?
Why are some people so driven to denigrate and call attention to the deficiencies of those Jews who are not visibly within the Catholic Church? The strict interpretation some place on Eugenio IV's bull would be equally and unequivocally damning of our "separated brethren."
The extreme opposite of indifferentism or erroenous "two covenants" theology is not the only option.
And so I wonder, is there equal condemnation from radical traditionalist Catholics for those who refuse to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, yet who are validly baptized?
Or is there extra serving reserved for Jews?
The quote at the top of my last posting was from Brian Mershon.
BTW, Mr. Borealis, you provided some needed food for thought. Thank you.
God provides every single man and woman on the face of this Earth the opportunity to be saved.
Neither you nor I have any IDEA WHATSOEVER who is more culpable in rejecting Christ and His Church than any other.
This whole idea of "those who are Protestants today and/or Jews today" are less culpable than those who first formed the break is pure sentimentality.
God gives EVERYONE the opportunity to be saved. Many, unfortunately, reject this grace. Many, willingly or not, reject His Church.
NONE of us has any idea whatsoever who is culpable, nor their degrees of culpability. That is left up to God to decide.
Outside the Church, there is no salvation. God works out the rest. I know the dogma to be true. As Catholics, we are required to. We are not required to try to figure out how all those outside the visible confines might somehow be saved. That is playing God.
If more are not saved, then perhaps we are MORE culpbable due to our complacent and uncharitable inaction of not trying to evangelize them.
To whom much is given, much is expected.
By the way, Paul, Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church by reciting the Athanasian Creed. He died within the visible confines of the Church.
He was NOT excommunicated for holding a strict dogma on "extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
Everyone likes to rehash Fr. Feeney in order to continue to slander him, but then ignore the fact that he died in full communion with the Church.
Some of the St. Benedict Center chapters currently continue to promote a strict understanding of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and continue to do so with the full approval and authority of the Church.
Mr. Mershon writes: "This whole idea of 'those who are Protestants today and/or Jews today' are less culpable than those who first formed the break is pure sentimentality."
That is a misapprehension of the thrust of what I wrote. To reiterate:
"The Jews of today are much farther removed from the fathers of their schism than the Protestants are from theirs. Two thousand years vs. five hundred. So, shall we insist on the inclusion of a prayer for the 'Protestants, the faithless people?'
Logically, the average Lutheran of today is far less likely to intentionally, and with full knowledge completely reject the Roman Pontiff than Martin Luther and his contemporaries. How much more so might this be the case with Jews or any other non-Christian group, for that matter?" (End quote)
My point was to draw attention to the disproportionate attention some seem to pay to the deficiencies of the Jewish condition as compared with that of the Protestant condition.
And I don't follow why you find it mere sentimentality to consider that an individual like Martin Luther (and those contemporary Catholics who followed him) is likely more culpable than the many who are Lutheran today because their parents raised them in that faith.
This seems to be simple common sense to me and it comports well with Catholic moral theology. When considering culpability for sin, one weighs the level of knowledge and intent behind the action. Clearly, Luther and his contemporaries were likely to understand and will their decision more than those removed by 5 centuries from the break.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, however. It us not up to us to judge who is saved and who is damned. It is up to us to evangelize, to whatever extent we are called and gifted, and to leave the rest to Him alone.
Point of clarification: my reference to a prayer for the "Protestants, the faithless people" was to echo Mr. Mershon's statement:
"The prayer for the conversion of the Jews, the faithless people, is much clearer and direct in the Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great."
If our choice of words and prayers is to be equal for all those "outside the Church", who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff, should we not desire and advocate for a prayer for "the conversion of the Protestants, the faithless people"?
Has anyone here ever advocated the inclusion of such a prayer? If not, why not?
Why is the "faithlessness" of the Jews so important to continue to single out?
That's what raises my eyebrows. Perhaps there's a perfectly good answer...but the discrepancy seems quite plain, at least on the face of it.
Another useful quote:
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, religions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 Jn. 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." (Singulari Quadem) END QUOTE
I take the Pope's warning at the end very seriously. And I believe that those on both extremes ought to as well: those universalists (hell may be empty) and those who react to this error by trying to spell out the strict limitations of God's mercy. It is my belief that both are on dangerous ground (albeit to different extents).
The answer is simple. Christ gave us a command to go out and preach the Gospel, period. We are to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, period. It is dangerous and wrong to suggest that any person or group is not in need of Christ.
But the Scriptures are also clear that judgment is for God alone, and it is dangerous to spend much time cogitating on who is going to hell, either...Jew or no. We infringe upon the Almighty's prerogatives if we do so and thereby fall all too easily into the deadly sin of pride.
Augustine, of course the simple answer is two-fold.
1. Baptized Christians who are not Catholic are theoretically closer to having some Faith than the Jews.
2. I like ALL the prayers on Good Friday in the Traditional Missal, not just the one for the Jews. If you have a problem with a prayer that was said publicly and universally for the conversion of the Jews for hundreds of years, then please take it up with the Church as well as the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers. I did not write it. The Church did. I have no problem with the prayer because the Jews do not hold THE FAITH as Thomistic theology clearly teaches.
Whether or not Martin Luther is more culpable than any Protestants alive today is something known to God alone, not to me nor you.
I have no problem adhering to the quotes you cite above WITH the caveat that the quote I gave was an infallible, dogmatic definition, with higher authority than the ones you gave. It has a higher degree of certitude for the Faith.
Mr. Mershon,
1) I did not indicate that the culpability for any sin could be known with certainty. But it is perfectly consonant with moral theology to point out that those who were directly involved in the original sinful act, (whether Jews like Caiaphas or Protestants like Martin Luther) are certainly more likely to be morally culpable than those who follow the the ramifications of those actions centuries or even millenia later.
2) Whether or not baptized Christians are closer to having faith or not was not the issue. The issue I raised pertained to the relative sinfulness of the schism caused by those who had (and continue to have even now, albeit to a lesser degree) greater access to the fulness of thruth and grace (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their adherents) or by those who did and do not (Jews).
Your point also suggests a natural follow-up. What of pagans, wiccans, hindus, Sikhs? Are Jews, who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob "theoretically closer to having some faith" than these groups? So, shouldn't we have prayers that single them out by name in the liturgy as well? They are each in a theoretically more deficient situation than followers of Judaism. Shouldn’t we spend as much time advocating for the inclusion of such specific prayers (perhaps even *more* time) than prayers for the “faithless Jews”? This does not even address the issue of ethnic identity. “Jew” means much more than a follower of Judaism. It is an ethnic identifier as well. Some Jews do believe in Christ, so the phrase “the faithless Jews” could be seen as problematic, inaccurate or at least confusing in that way. This formulation treats them as one, faithless block. Some are Catholic. Some are Protestant. Most are not. Most Chinese are not Catholic, either. Should a prayer be included that singles out the faithless Chinese today? If not, why not?
3) I have no problem acknowledging that non-Catholic Jews do not have the fullness of the faith and do not believe in the Messiah and his Church. But are you suggesting that the precise *formulation* of this prayer for the Jewish people is somehow infallible or illicit to revise over time in reaction to different historical contexts and conditions? Or do you agree that such formulations may be changed by the Church, or even omitted should it be decided upon? (I ask these questions seriously, I don’t know your views).
4) And finally, are you suggesting that Singulari Quadem may not be true or that Catholics may refuse to accept it? If not, then I do not understand the practical import of your distinction in this context. If it is to be followed, then it is to be followed, and it bears directly on the proper interpretation of EENS.
Addendum to point #1: I failed to include the observation that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli et al were relatively learned men within the Church and therefore the possible exculpating factor of ignorance is diminished as well.
Addendum to point #3. Appparently the Church herself had concerns about the oldest formulation of the Good Friday prayer as well. So, there is no need for me to "take it up with the Church" because the Church herself has already taken it up.
Mershon: "If you have a problem with a prayer that was said publicly and universally for the conversion of the Jews for hundreds of years, then please take it up with the Church as well as the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers. I did not write it. The Church did."
Augustine said it right. The same Church that wrote the "traditional" prayer (good luck proving that this prayer was part of the liturgies of the early Church) also wrote the new prayer. So if anyone has a problem with that, perhaps they should take it up with the Church.
I get so tired of this argument. The Church re-wrote the prayer to remove unnecessary offense (and THAT'S something you WILL find in the Apostolic writings, see 1 Corinthians 10:32). Some people seem to think that God only hears those prayers that have maximum potential for offending.
These same people tend to define their own salvation by contrasting it with the damnation of others. It's weird. And ugly.
Someone previously said:
"The Jews are part of us and always will be and we are part of them. Their heritage is ours."
There is some truth in this, but it is not complete. Since the schism of the 1st century, Judaism has anadditional heritage that is not shared with us. While this divergence is often exaggerated, manufactured and otherwise mischaracterized by those particularly hostile to the Jewish people and Judaism, the fact remains that there are additional differences that have developed as the result of the rejection of Christ. I don't believe it is helpful or even possible to ignore these developments. But it is even worse to misuse and abuse them as some do.
"Some people ...people tend to define their own salvation by contrasting it with the damnation of others. It's weird. And ugly.
Paul | 08.22.07 - 12:43 pm | # "
Well said Paul -
Unfortunatelly it seem to extends well beyond prayers and interaction with other religions - some noticable uncharitable overshoot in their "holy, wellmeaning" aim to proof that one way to worship ( incidently the one they happen to prefer)is the superior one.
These folks all but ridicle the majority of fellow catholics.
But hey what's new -after all Jesus had to battle the scribes and pharisees of his day in order to get them to see beyond narrow human interpretations and religious rules.
I think there is nothing wrong with seeking out and promoting a particular way to worship - just do it in a way that allows your fello brothers and sisters in christ - who happen to not be quite of the same opinion to worship with equal dignity.
Yes there are plenty of us catholics that are very well served by contemporary forms of mass - church service that perhaps includes plenty of happy clapper songs and hand holding.
You people are the ones with the obsession with placating a religion that hates Christ and Christianity.
But to each his own. As for me and my family, we choose Christ and His Church. If you think that Jews are saved in, by and through their anti-Christian religion, then I will pray for you.
Considering:
a) Your attempt a defense of the indefensible earlier in this thread...
b) I did and do not "advocate placating" anything or anyone...
c) It is not possible to "placate" a religion, strictly speaking. But it *is* possible to be charitable toward other human beings who practice a different religion while praying and working toward their conversion to the fullness of the faith...
d) I never indicated that a follower of Judaism could be saved in and through their religion...
I think it more likely that you have a obsession with Judaism and the Jewish people. But the best of luck bringing Jewish people to Christ with that approach, if that is your goal.
Correction: "a)" should read, "your attempt at a defense..."
Mershon: "If you think that Jews are saved in, by and through their anti-Christian religion, then I will pray for you."
Great.
Will that prayer go something like, "God, I pray for that faithless heretic N., who is in danger of eternal damnation, that he would be rescued from his stubborn blindness ..."?
I don't recall anyone saying that the Jews can be saved in, by, and through their own religion. I do recall someone saying, though, that there is nothing wrong with being inoffensive as long as we don't compromise the faith.
The new prayer for the Jews is less offensive but it compromises nothing of the faith. It still asks God for the conversion of the Jews. And since the Church has approved it, Mr. Mershon, you might want to reconsider the adversarial position you've seemingly adopted. If you have a serious complaint, take it up with Mother.
Commenting by HaloScan
