Ales Rarus » theology

Praying for the Conversion of Jews

Funky Dung — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:03:52 +0000

Since the release of Summorum Pontificum, various talking heads have been apoplectic because the Tridentine mass includes a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Much ado is being made of nothing, though.

First of all, the offending prayer is found in missals prior to 1962 (the version now referred to as the extraordinary use of the Roman rite).

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that our God and Lord may remove the veil from their hearts; that they also may acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray. (‘Amen’ is not responded, nor is said ‘Let us pray’, or ‘Let us kneel’, or ‘Arise’, but immediately is said:) Almighty and Eternal God, Who dost not exclude from Thy mercy even the faithless Jews: 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 Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, through all endless ages. Amen.

According to Wikipedia (link above), the word “faithless” was removed prior to the publication of the 1962 missal.

In 1960, Pope John XXIII removed the word “faithless” (Latin “perfidis”) from the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. This word had caused much trouble in recent times because of misconceptions of the Latin “perfidis” as “perfidious”, giving birth to the view that the prayer accused the Jews of treachery, which was a complete misunderstanding of the prayer since it was not a litany of accusation, but a petition for conversion. In handmissals from the 1950’s and more recent ones, used by the laity to follow the Latin Mass, the word was always correctly translated as “faithless” or “unbelieving”.

The 1962 version reads as follows.

Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and everlasting God, you who do not turn away the Jews also from your mercy: hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that, the light of your truth which is Christ being known, they might come out of their darkness. Through our Lord the same Jesus Christ, your son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen.

Secondly, the prayer is quite different in the current missal, first published in 1970.

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.

So, we’re still praying for the conversion of the Jews, but we refer to that conversion as arrival “at the fullness of redemption”. Faith in Christ is necessary for that fullness.

Lastly, what the heck is so wrong about praying for the conversion of Jews - or anyone for that matter?! Shouldn’t all Christians be spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers? Shouldn’t we want everyone to experience Christ’s love? In particular, shouldn’t we desire for Jews to complete their Judaism, to see the fulfillment all of the old covenants and enter into the new and everlasting covenant instituted by Christ?

Antisemitism is bigotry, pure and simple; it is a sin. Praying for Jews to convert to Christianity is not de facto antisemitism. No Christian should ever have to apologize for praying for the conversion of anyone, so long as their prayers are offered in love.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - John 14:6 (NAB)

The Ladder of Divine Ascent: Vainglory and Pride

Funky Dung — Thu, 10 May 2007 20:01:46 +0000

From John Climacus: The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus:

Like the sun which shines on all alike, vainglory beams on every occupation. What I mean is this. I fast, and turn vainglorious. I stop fasting so that I will draw no attention to myself, and I become vainglorious over my prudence. I dress well or badly, and I am vainglorious in either case. I talk or hold my peace, and each time I am defeated. No matter how I shed this prickly thing, a spike remains to stand up against me.

The flatter is a servant of the devils, a teacher of pride, the destroyer of contrition, a vandal of excellence, a perverse guide. The prophet says this: “Those who honor you deceive you” (Isa. 3:12).

When you hear that your neighbor or your friend has denounced you behind your back or indeed in your presence, show him love and try to compliment him.

It is not the self-critical who reveals his humility (for does not everyone have somehow to put up with himself?). Rather it is the man who continues to love the person who has criticized him.

Vainglory induces pride in the favored and resentment in those who are slighted. Often it causes dishonor instead of honor, because it brings great shame to its angry disciples. It makes the quick-tempered look mild before men. It thrives amid talent and frequently brings catastrophe on those enslaved to it.

A man who takes pride in natural abilities - I mean cleverness, the ability to learn, skill in reading, good diction, quick grasp, and such skills as we possess without having to work for them - this man, I say, will never receive the blessings of heaven, since the man who is unfaithful in little is unfaithful in much. And there are men who wear out their bodies to no purpose in the pursuit of total dispassion, heavenly treasures, miracle working, and prophetic ability, and the poor fools do not realize that humility, not hard work, is the mother of such things. The man who seeks quid pro quo from God builds on uncertainty, whereas the man who considers himself a debtor will receive sudden and unexpected riches.

When the winnower [i.e., the devil] tells you to show off your virtues for the benefit of an audience, do not yield to him. “What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and destroy himself?” (Matt. 16:26).

But there is a glory that comes from the Lord. “I will glorify those who glorify Me,” He says (1 Sam. 2:30). And there is a glory that follows it which is contrived by the demons, for it is said, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you” (Luke 6:26). You can recognize the first kind of glory when you look on it as dangerous and run from it in every possible way, hiding your life-style wherever you are. And you may be certain of the other sort when you find yourself doing something, however small, with the hope that men may notice you.

Dread vainglory urges us to pretend that we have some virtue which does not belong to us. It encourages us with the text: “Let your light shine before men that they will see your good deeds” (Matt. 5:16).

Pride is a denial of God, an invention of the devil, contempt for men. It is the mother of condemnation, the offspring of praise, a sign of barrenness. It is a flight from God’s help, the harbinger of madness, the author of downfall. It is the cause of diabolical possession, the source of anger, the gateway of hypocrisy. It is the fortress of demons, the custodian of sins, the source of hardheartedness. It is the denial of compassion, a bitter pharisee, a cruel judge. It is the foe of God. It is the root of blasphemy.
Pride begins where vainglory leaves off. Its midpoint comes with the humiliation of our neighbor, the shameless parading of our achievements, complacency, and unwillingness to be found out. It ends with the spurning of God’s help, the exalting of one’s own efforts and a devilish disposition.

The man ensnared by pride will need God’s help, since man is of no use to him
I captured this senseless deceiver once. It was rising up in my heart and on its shoulders was vainglory, its mother. I roped them with the noose of obedience and flailed them with the whip of humility. Then I lashed them and asked how they had managed to gain access to me. “We have no beginning and no birth,” they said, “for we are the source and begetters of all the passions. The strongest opposition to us comes from the contrition of heart that grows out of obedience. We can endure no authority over us, which is why we fell from heaven where we surely had authority. In short, we are the authors and the progenitors of everything opposed to humility, for everything that favors humility brings us low. We prevail everywhere except in heaven. So, then, where will you run to escape us? You will find us often where there is patient endurance of dishonor, where there is obedience and freedom from anger, where there is willingness to bear no grudge, where one’s neighbor is served. And our children are the falls of those who lead the life of the spirit. Their names: Anger, Calumny, Spite, Irascibility, Yelling, Blasphemy, Hypocrisy, Hatred, Envy, Argumentativeness, Self-will, Disobedience.
“There is only one thing with which we cannot interfere, and the violence you do us will make us admit what this is. If you can honestly condemn yourself before the Lord, then indeed you will find us as flimsy as a cobweb. For, you see, Vainglory is pride’s saddle-horse on which I am mounted. But holy Humility and Self-deprecation will laugh at the horse and its rider and will joyfully sing the song of triumph: ‘Let us sing to the Lord, for He has been truly glorified. Horse and rider He has thrown into the sea’ (Exod. 15:1), into the depths of humility.”

Limbo Lives?

Funky Dung — Fri, 04 May 2007 02:40:10 +0000

I guess I spoke too soon.

Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says
Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended

The theory of limbo is not ruled out, says a member of the International Theological Commission, commenting on a study from the panel. Sister Sara Butler, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity, has served on the commission since 2004. The commission is an advisory body comprised of 30 theologians chosen by the Pope. Its documents are not considered official expressions of the magisterium, but the commission does help the Holy See to examine important doctrinal issues.

Backpeddling or setting the media straight? Hmm…

Al Kimmel (Pontifications) has some good posts of limbo here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Michael Liccione (also at Pontifications) has a couple here and here.

Wherefor Original Sin?

Funky Dung — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:13:09 +0000

Thinking about baptism and salvation, a question occurred to me. Why does the Church teach the doctrine of original sin? Where did it come from? I’ve always thought the following bit of Scripture, written long before Christ’s salvific work, directly contradicted this doctrine.

“The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” - Ezekiel 18:20

Are we not all sons of Adam (whether it be literally or figuratively), who committed the first - the original - sin? Why are we held accountable for his sin?

My impression is that the Eastern Orthodox don’t hold the same beliefs as Catholics regarding the Fall and original sin. What are their beliefs? How do they differ? Why do they differ? Would these doctrines interfere with future reunification?

OK, those questions are more than enough for now. Discuss.

Limbo in Limbo No Longer

Funky Dung — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:00:01 +0000

I’m sure there’ll be some hard-core Thomists and rad-trads getting their knickers in a twist over this news.

Unbaptised children out of limbo, Benedict rules

In a long-awaited document published on Friday, the Vatican says that the traditional view of limbo as the destiny of those who die unbaptised is based on an “unduly restrictive view of salvation” and that God “wants all human beings to be saved”. The result is that, with the approval of Pope Benedict, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the International Herald Tribune reports. The thumbs-down verdict on limbo had been expected for years and the document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised,” was seen as most likely to be final since limbo was never formally part of Church doctrine.

When the text of the report is available, I’ll link to it.

A Reminder About Proper Christian Behavior

Funky Dung — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:24:34 +0000

Some recent unpleasant interactions between Christians have been weighing on my conscience. As I sat in eucharistic adoration this morning, I asked God what I should have done/be doing. Just before leaving the chapel, I prayed morning prayer of the divine office and the scripture reading was this:

“Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” - Ephesians 4:29-32

I think God wanted me to remind myself and others of this teaching. While I’m on the subject, I’ll throw in the following for good measure.

“[T]he whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another…If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.” - Galatians 5:15,25-26

Chastity Lifestyle Education

Gutter Ball Master — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:21:30 +0000

Did you hear the new statistic about premarital sex? 90% of people surveyed have had premarital sex.

The results of the analysis indicate that premarital sex is highly normative behavior. Almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years.

As I understand it, the goals of sex education are to reduce the number of premarital (and perhaps extramarital) sexual encounters (define it as you may), reduce the number of STD cases, and/or reduce the frequency of school-aged mothers (again define as you may).

The U.S. already has many programs: abstinence only, give them the facts, a mixture of the last two, just give them a condom already, abortion as birth control, self-mutilation, and the morning after pill.

In my opinion, “Abstinence Only Education” is a step in the right direction; however, I would go further to the realm of “Chastity Lifestyle Education”.

Using fear in “Abstinence Only Education”, by forcing girls to make contracts with their fathers and wear promise jewelry, is not the way to go. These forces quickly come loose in anyone’s memory. (Same goes for the guys.)

Instead, with “Chastity Lifestyle Education” young people may come to understand that their body is not something to be used and discarded but something to be cherished and that physical, mental, and spiritual intimacy needs to be nurtured over a lifetime. This new life view taught by “Chastity Lifestyle Education” may not unravel as easily as the methods mentioned above. (But as I say, “Anybody is capable of anything at any time. Pray to God that He may help you.”)

Of course the “Why Chastity?” will be asked. That’s the catch with “Chastity Lifestyle Education”. God cannot enter into play for many schools, but the ultimate sex education comes from the Creator of sex (as wonderfully explained by Pope John Paul II). Until “Chastity Lifestyle Education” takes place, no real headway will be made toward the goals of sex education.

Can you tell I’m pessimistic about U.S. sex education curricula and outcomes?

What do you think?

Joining St. Blog’s Parish

Funky Dung — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:02:12 +0000

For the record, contrary to a certain angry young man’s claim, the following text (or words to similar effect) has been prominently displayed at the St. Blog’s Parish Aggregator page for quite some time. If a similar disclaimer was not visible at the SBP Blog’s and Resources page, hopefully it will be soon.

How do I join? Are there membership restrictions?

Membership is mostly open. There aren’t theological restrictions per se, but we ask that Catholic members recognize and respect the Magesterium of the Church and be obedient to the Pope and authorities under him. After all, without those, you aren’t really Catholic are you? We ask that Orthodox members be obedient to their patriarchs. Beyond that, there aren’t any restrictions. We’re not theology police and you need not be a NeoCath. Feel free to disagree with Church teachings so long as you do so respectfully. Also, this list should family-friendly. If you encounter a member blog of SBPA that is frequently vulgar, pornographic, violent, or hateful, let us know. If you’d like to join, fill out the membership form here. For more information (e.g. “What is syndication?”, “What is St. Blog’s”, etc.), click here.

The admin for the SBP Blogs and Resources page, John Bowden, has posted a response to the rantings of Joe Perez, including an explanation for why his application was rejected. Mark Shea and Kathy Shaidle have tossed in their two cents as well.

This is the only bit that I’d like to further address:

Faith is vulgar. Life is vulgar. The Cross is vulgar. If Until is vulgar, it’s because it strives to be real to what is. The Catholicism of Saint Blog’s Parish is apparently the sanitized, flushed-down-the-toilet, hide-your-eyes-and-don’t-peek sort of religiosity appropriate for children and adults with a childlike spirituality who demand to be chaperoned. I’m glad I know better now. You want to hear vulgar you should listen to me try to sing. DON’T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA!

Oh, really?

“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” - Luke 18:17

Ah, but Joe’s already addressed that.

Mistaking childish faith for child-like faith, St. Blog’s Parish has set its goal at being the Internet’s #1 destination for watered-down sorts of Christianity suitable for children of age 13.

So whatever it is we’re doing/saying is childish, but profane rantings and crude and vulgar insults aimed at an archbishop isn’t? Riiiight.

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying,’Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,and said, ‘Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.’” - Matthew 18:1-6

“Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.” - Ephesians 5:4

Let’s assume we are childish, Joe. I don’t see how crude language and malicious vituperations make you any more mature than us. In fact, you sound an awful lot like an ill-bred brat whining and yelling “I hate you!” to his parents (i.e., the Church) because nobody will listen to him and he isn’t allowed to have his way.

Anyhow, for a lengthier examination of Christian interaction (especially in public fora such as blogs) and vulgarity, read these posts. I hate repeating myself.

False Doctrines: Sola Lexio Torta Mea Scripturae

Funky Dung — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:44:41 +0000

Rob of UnSpace asks:

There’s a popular doctrine in the churches today, although it is rejected by the leadership of most churches. This doctrine is based on falsehoods, causes non-Christians to reject Christianity, Christians to lose their faith, and causes its followers to lie? Judging by the fruits of this doctrine, would you say this is of God or of something else?

The particular doctrine he’s asking about is Creationism. What are your thoughts?

Romanists = Boogymen

Funky Dung — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:02:26 +0000

A Few Rare Pearls

It has often been my complaint that John McArthur was a bit wishy-washy, but he gets real serious, and dare I say, very “fundamental” in this [podcasted sermon] message. If there are any Romanists reading this, you definitely need to hear this message, as pastor McArthur deals with the subject of whether evangelicals should regard Romanists as brothers and sisters in the Faith, or as unbelievers who should be evangelized.

Listen and comment.