It has been long anticipated with joy, hope, grief and anxiety. Well, here it is:
Oremus et pro Iudaeis Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.
Oremus.
Flectamus genua.
Levate.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
It clearly asks that the Jews be permitted to recognise Jesus Christ as the the Saviour of all men. Furthermore, the fourth ut carries the implication that the Old Law is not salvific, for the Jews must be saved as the Nations have been through entering the Church. No doubt it will be poorly spun in the media but it has the same content as the old prayer.
February 6, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Exactly. Fr E sent me this article which makes this clear.
Now, if only all the ‘mad trads’ would listen. Grrr!
February 6, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Yes, some of them are being a mite perfidious.
February 6, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Well, indeed.
As I posted elsewhere last night, in that it removes a potential stick with which all and sundry may beat the ’62 missal without changing the nature and scope of the prayer, this alteration of the text is not “dumb” at all (as some comments on other blogs have labelled it).
The new prayer is just as charitable in its intent as the old one, because the intent is preceisely the same, but changing it shows a further charitable intention that it not be misunderstood. The Pope is thus clearly seen to be going the extra mile to avoid unfortunate misunderstanding over an issue which, like it or not, would have continued to have been used against the Church – and all this without a single change of principle or giving an inch doctrinally. The Pope is seen to be eager to avoid even the perception of offensive language to one of the most historically ill-used peoples on earth, but without going any further than any reasonable person would request. The continued objections from various Jewish and secularist organisations demonstrate that any such further demands to alter the prayer have only the unreasonable aim of ditching the prayer for conversion altogether in mind.
But, as usual, those looking to create stumbling-blocks out of this sort of change (whether mad-trads or über-liberals) will in part succeed just by making a “scandalised” noise about it – ironically so, given the Pope clearly intended this change to remove a potential stumbling-block to acceptance of the old rite. Only those who are determined by their own entrenched positions that this should be seen as a watering down of the faith (or an insufficient distancing from the historic profession of it) will see it as such, and such people will never be satisfied.
Frankly, some of the mad-trad comments I’ve seen on some sites sicken me every bit as much as the über-liberal reactions.
February 6, 2008 at 6:35 pm
It would be fun if the Holy Father substituted the new form of the prayer for the Jews for the Bugnini prayer in the Novus Ordo Good Friday liturgy. I wonder if the words:
“Tale testo dovrà essere utilizzato, a partire dal corrente anno, in tutte le Celebrazioni della Liturgia del Venerdì Santo con il citato Missale Romanum.”
could bear that interpretation already?
February 6, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Aelianus:
Tsk tsk!
“con il citato Missale Romanum”!
February 6, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Personally I’d love to see it used in the newer form of the liturgy.
I’m astonished at some of the reactions by some adherents of the older liturgy. Contrast their refusal to change the manner in which the Jews are referred to in this prayer with their sometimes extraordinary efforts to cast the ecclesial and canonical status of the SSPX and their bishops in the most nuanced and favourable light.
It also begs the question when they’re going to start campaigning to have St Joseph dis-inserted from the Roman Canon in order to preserve the integrity of the Mass.
February 6, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Well yes but it doesn’t say “con la citata edizione del missale romanum” (I realise this is a bit tenuous).
February 7, 2008 at 9:35 am
Aelianus: I think it is a bit tenuous too, but I get your drift.
Zadok: LOL!
February 7, 2008 at 10:29 am
My Dear Children,
I do so wish you stopped this senseless (if at times not altogether unwarranted) “mad-Trad” bashing, and take a look at the problem itself. The old prayer was a paraphrase of 2 Cor 3:13-16, while the new is a paraphrase of Rom 11:25-27.
Two things (among others) follow from this: (1) Most importantly, the intent and doctrinal content of the prayer has not changed. Both scriptural texts (the new prayer only implicitly) speak of the “blindness of Israel or Jacob”, and express the Catholic doctrine that the remission of sins and salvation (even for the Jews) can and will only come through Jesus Christ and His Church. Thus, doctrinally there is no real problem with the new oration because it leaves intact “the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church” (cf. Dominus Iesus, no. 3). This important truth, unfortunately, is much less explicit in the new formula. The question arises: if the doctrine is unchanged, why in the world change a millenial liturgical text (or older)? For the fun of it? For political reasons? In order to adapt the text to the tastes and sensibilities of our modern age? This is a slippery slope… Besides, we all know that for those whom the new prayer intends to placate, it is not the “pro Iudaeis” oration that is the “stumblingstone”, but Christ Himself (cf. Rom 9:31-33). In the end, the change is nothing but a pointless verbal contortion, a meaningless gesture with no real consequence. Should the liturgy be subject to the whim of every “political lobby” or ecclesiastical pressure-group? (I note hat the change came from the Secretariat of State – Bertone – and not the CDW, i.e. Ranjith!)
(2) It is of great importance to remember that the change introduced is NOT A DOCTRINAL ISSUE!!! This ought to neutralise the pseudo-doctrinal and anti-Judaic objections of those whom you call “mad-Trads”. Liturgically, however, it is a disaster. Undoubtedly, the “extraordinary form” could use some “fresh blood”: perhaps a little more vernacular, new Prefaces, additional alternative readings for the saints, etc. It would be possible (in fact, desireable) to enrich (!) the “classical” form, but it is simply imprudent to rewrite millenial liturgical texts for political reasons. It creates a dangerous precedent liturgically (Yes, Zadok! Not unlike the whimsical introduction of Joseph into the Canon!) whereby personal tastes, private devotions, political or social “programmes” can freely manipulate the oldest and most venerable liturgical material we have inherited.
In sum: although I feel very indignant and utterly frustrated about the change, I will conform to this new regulation in the spirit of “obsequium religiosum”. That being said, this is not a “matter of faith and morals” and the infallibility of the magisterium only extends as far as the deposit of faith (cf. Lumen Gentium no. 25). Consequently, the new prayer can only lay claim to my “external conformity” and never to my “internal assent”. Catholicism ought never to be confused with “Ultramontanism”.
February 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I freely concede that this is a matter of a prudential judgment on the part of the Holy Father and we are free to disagree with him. Nevertheless, there is a moral/doctrinal element. If the formula were unorthodox a cleric would be bound in conscience to omit it. This is clearly not the case. I know of at least one priest, who would never normally alter a liturgical text, whose scruples over the prayer for the Jews in the Novus Ordo are such that he subtly changes it to make it clearer that the old law does not justify. Clearly there are no such doctrinal considerations here and the clergy are bound to obey the disciplinary authority of the Holy See in this matter.
While I think the matter capable of reasonable doubt I think the Holy Father’s actions can be defended on prudential grounds.
There are a number of very serious factors at work above and beyond mere political correctness in this decision. The Holocaust cannot be ignored. To some degree (less than the secular media would have it) hostility to the Jews, founded or at least justified by their refusal to accept the Messiah, played a part in the anti-antisemitism which prepared the way for the Nazis. It cannot be denied that we have not behaved in a consistently justifiable way towards our elder brethren over the centuries.
That the old law does not justify, that it is essential for the salvation of each and every Jew to receive Christ are non-negotiable truths. Nevertheless, any language which could be read as making assumptions concerning the subjective responsibility of individual members of the Jewish people needed to be considered in the light of the catastrophic events of the mid twentieth century. In the light of these considerations I think the alterations made by Benedict XVI are entirely justifiable.
One further consideration is that there is still prevalent among some ‘traditionalists’ a strong and unpleasant steak of antisemitism. This is less obvious in this country but much more noticeably on the continent especially among those on the political right and those in or flirting with schism. I have encountered this phenomenon several times and it is not pleasant. Something has to be done about this and the rehabilitation of the 1962 Missal cannot become a means by which Petainism or worse become legitimized or achieves a foothold in the Church. Racism and the attribution of a particular individual responsibility for Deicide to members of the Jewish people are very serious moral and doctrinal errors.
The formula in the 1970 Missal is also a reaction to these factors (in an earlier form) but it is tainted by the doctrinal errors (and possible malice) of the committee
responsible for the ‘implementation’ of the Constitution on the Liturgy.
The Holy Father seems to think that the (originally and objectively blameless) formula in the 1962 Missal was capable in the context of the Holocaust and of these tendencies on the part of certain ‘traditionalists’ of being used as a shelter or justification for serious moral and doctrinal errors and a scandal to the very Jews for whose conversion we are praying. In the Church the salvation of souls must always be the supreme law.
February 7, 2008 at 1:42 pm
What’s interesting is that it’s now quite clear that what (many) Jews object to is the fact that we’re praying for their conversion. Previously it was possible for them and indeed some Catholics to make a huge fuss about the fact that they’re described as blind and having a veil on their hearts – it was very easy to ‘spin’ the prayer as anti-semetic.
That’s not possible any more. That critique is impossible any more.
I agree 100% with you, Aelianus – there are factors both within and outside the Church which made the change prudent. One worries that the level of outrage in some corners may (justly or unjustly depending on the situation) reinforce the idea of there being anti-semitism amongst those attached to the older rite.
Tartuffe refers to my analogy with the insertion of St Joseph into the Roman Canon – well, I don’t think it’s mad-trad bashing to point out that there’s virtually no activity within circles attached to the older form to reverse the decision of Bl John XXIII in the name of liturgical purity, whilst the proposed prayer of Benedict XVI is causing folk to splutter and gasp and threaten to move in the direction of schism by associating themselves with groups of dubious canonical standing.
If I were writing, I would qualify some of the statements made on this blog concerning the Old Law – whilst it’s legitimate to say that it does not justify, one should also draw attention to the fact that it may also justly be described as salvific in as much as the New Law does not stand in total discontinuity with it, but is rather its perfection. Of course, perfection is meant here in its strongest possible sense – the New Law far surpasses the Old – it’s not a mere cornice added atop it.
February 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Dear Aelianus,
I could not agree more with the essence of your comment. I, too, have encountered the very unpleasant and visceral anti-Judaism of certain “traditionalists”, especially in France. This phenomenon, of course, extends way beyond the confines of religion… but this is a difficult matter whose analysis belongs to another discussion.
You are right in pointing out that in a “post-Shoah” situation, one must be ever so sensitive to these issues, but I am of the opinion that the 1955 revision of this prayer was more than sufficient to remove “the sting”. The (re)introduction of the “Flectamus genua – Levate” dialogue, and the removal of the obscure adjective “perfidis” was a very considerate and – from a liturgical point of view – harmless editorial change which managed to retain full continuity with tradition (minor case). This is not the case with the new oration!
I have made it abundantly clear that this is not a doctrinal but a disciplinary issue, or better yet: a liturgical issue. I also “declared” that I would respect the new regulation (while maintaining a certain mental reservation about its manifest imprudence). Yet I feel I must repeat: the liturgy should not be made subject to these “political” or “social” or “prudential” measures (however you are wont to label it). The Holy Week ceremonies represent the oldest stratum of the the Franko-Roman liturgy (essentially coming from Jerusalem); it is not the proper “medium” for engineering the “social climate” of the Church, or for making inconsequential irenic gestures to those outside of her.
I say “inconsequential” because I can already hear the comments from among those whom the new prayer is meant to placate. Since the underlying doctrine is unchanged, and because the new prayer still expresses the need to convert to Christ, the gesture is meaningless as it does not go “far enough”.
Finally, the original text of the “pro Iudaeis” prayer never-ever makes any reference whatsoever to the ludicrous and completely unchristian idea of “corporate responsibility” for the “deicide of the Jews”. This should be eradicated from the mind of every Christian once and for all, but your allusion to this is, well, … a moot point.
February 7, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Dear Zadok,
Once again, I would like to point out to you that the Pauline passage whose paraphrase the new prayer is, also contains a reference to the “partial blindness” of the Jews regarding Christ, the one and true Saviour (cf. Rom 11:25-27).
Talking about a certain kind of spiritual bindness or a veil covering the hearts of those who still adhere to Judaism is completely scriptural (2 Cor 3:13-16), and woe to us, Christians, if we begin to be ashamed of the word of God!
For our common edification:
“For he that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty, and that of his Father, and of the holy angels.” (Lk 9:26)
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.” (Rom 1:16)
“Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but labour with the gospel, according to the power of God.” (2 Tim 1:8)
February 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Tartuffe,
I don’t see your point. I wasn’t suggesting we re-write scripture and I’m sure the Holy Father’s use of those texts was far from accidental. I wasn’t suggesting that to describe Jews as living in a state of blindness was incorrect, and I’m not suggesting that we need be ashamed by what St Paul wrote.
Whether it is prudent or not to use those particular words in scripture when we’re praying for the Jewish people is quite another question. There’s an awful lot of strong language in scripture about an awful lot of things. Its inclusion or otherwise in our prayers is not an indication of whether we are ashamed or not of it.
A quick example – 1 John 2:18-19 describes those who have left the Church as anti-Christs. However, without denying or being ashamed of what St John wrote, I would argue that this imposes no obligation to call lapsed Catholics or other heretics as anti-Christs in the public prayer of the Church.
February 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Dear Zadok,
You are right. Sometimes it is not expedient to yell certain “strong” sciptural phrases from the roof-tops. But this is not the issue here.
The problem is the following: by the extension of the very logic you represent or defend, you could go through the entire Missal and Office, and remove every expression that may be – in one way or another – considered offensive by some lobby or modern pressure group. What the Secretariat of the State (and not the CDW, I cannot emphasise enough!) did, creates an unfortunate precedent with the old rite. The Psalms (with similar intent) have already been “castrated” (or accomodated, if you prefer) by Bugnini in the Liturgy of the Hours, but a political (and I argue inconsequential) change of this kind in the traditional liturgy rightly upsets certain people who – like myself – fear for the integrity anfd future of the “extraordinary form”.
February 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I remember once coming across a very old Missal with a Mass against the Turks. It would be interesting to see how such a Mass made its way into the missal and how it was also eliminated from the Missal as an example of how such issues have an impact (not necessarily negative) on the liturgy. It’s not a precisely analagous situation, but it might be worth thinking about.
February 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I hate to say: “I said so!”
Behold:
From the Italian daily Corriere della Sera:
Italian Rabbinical Assembly: “Pause for reflection in the dialogue” with Catholics
The opinion on the change of the Good Friday prayer: “An abandonment of the very conditions for dialogue”
ROME – And now, a rupture. The Italian Rabbinical Asseembly considers necessary a “pause for reflection in the dialogue” with Catholics after the modification of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
And it underlines that the modification decided by Pope Ratzinger is “an abandonment of the very conditions for dialogue”. The Assembly states so in a note signed by its president, Rabbi Giuseppe Laras.
(Source: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com)
February 7, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Oh, I don’t think anyone was suggesting that this would satisfy Jewish people. However, now the reason for their dissatisfaction is evident, but they can’t make a fuss about insulting or anti-semitic language.
I think both Aelianus and I have made it abundantly clear that this isn’t about appeasement of the Jews.
I’m convinced that Benedict was expecting exactly this reaction and I for one don’t see it as being a bad position for us to be in.
February 7, 2008 at 4:14 pm
First, let me also express my complete agreement with Aelianus.
Tartuffe, where in the breviary, or anywhere else, is there any comparably harsh language (or rather, language that could subjectively be considered harsh) directed at a person or racial/ethnic community of people used in a prayer for them? Such a prayer would be the only relevant comparison with this one.
The only comparably strongly-worded passages from the Fathers I can think of that are incorporated into the breviary are readings, not petitions. As Zadok has pointed out, not all scriptural passages (and certainly not all Patristic ones) would be appropriate material to incorporate into particular prayers.
February 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I rest my case.
Just one more “poetic” question: What exactly was the point? It seems to me that the change has accomplished nothing, while it sacrificed a venerable scripturally inspired liturgical text, which is one of the oldest within our tradition. For no real gain, an unfortunate precedent was created: political maneuvers have been allowed to overwrite a perfectly harmless but all the more venerable liturgical text.
I now take (an entirely amicable) leave of this discussion. God bless you all!
February 7, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I don’t precisely disagree with your arguments Tartuffe. It is a very bad idea to fiddle with the Missal especially in the present context of forty years of botched liturgical reform. However, I think this is a special case for the reasons I mentioned. I do not deny that objectively the change is regrettable. It might have been possible to leave it at deleting ‘perfidis’ were it not that the text has already been completely changed and very badly in the Bugnini reform and some of those opposed to that reform are open to accusations of antisemitism.
An alternative strategy would indeed have been to keep the 1962 form of the prayer and deny that it should be read in a hostile way. The Pope seems to have thought that was not enough. I think he is probably right. In fact by issuing this new version he has emphasized very effectively that the Church seeks the conversion of the Jews, that the rites of the old law do not justify and that she has no time for antisemitism all at the same time. In a way that is rather a coup. That could not have been achieved simply by respecting the antiquity of the original prayer because it would be written off by the two covenant theory brigade as just that – respect for antiquity and of no theological significance. Nevertheless, it is objectively regrettable that this prayer had to be changed. That it had to be is certainly a matter capable of reasonable doubt. It is the Pope’s job to take these decisions and it would certainly be disastrous to reverse it now. All we can hope is that the fact that this is a one off special case is respected.
Zadok – The old law was salvific ex opere operantis when animated by a living faith before Our Lord’s death. Since then it has lost any such power. It no doubt plays a pedagogical role for its adherents (and for us!) but it is useless/harmful from the point of view of the forgiveness of sins.
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel – the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ‘To such an extent, then,’ says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death…” – Pius XII, Mystici Corporis §29-30
“the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour … firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.” – Council of Florence
February 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I agree with you Aelianus (and the Magiserium, of course…) in your understanding of how the Old Law is not salvific.
It’s no small thing to describe the Old Law as being pedagogical – it certainly surpasses the pedagogy of secular philosophy, for example in as much as it reveals the mysteries of Christ to those who read it spiritually.
February 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Squabble, squabble, fuss. I thought someone or other (like John Paul II) said that the First Convenant still stood and that the Jews would be saved through their commitment to it (through Jesus, of course, even if they don’t make an act of faith in Jesus). Where did I get this idea, eh?
February 7, 2008 at 6:26 pm
The secular media
February 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm
No, I am pretty sure I heard it at theology school.
February 7, 2008 at 6:38 pm
So, even less likely to be true then…..
February 7, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Sounds a bit like Lumen Gentium…
February 7, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Well, it depends on what you mean by the First Covenant still standing. Lumen Gentium 16 affirmed:
[T]hose who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.
Thus, John Paul II used to affirm that the Covenant was not revoked. Note, however, that Lumen Gentium speaks in terms of a call – that call must be to Christ, even though for the Jewish people it will come through the Mosaic Covenant in a manner different to the way in which the Gentiles are called to Christ.
However, that’s far from identical with what Seraphic remembers. Not even those websites which take delight in compiling the heresies of JPII seem to make that claim.
February 7, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“even though for the Jewish people it will come through the Mosaic Covenant in a manner different to the way in which the Gentiles are called to Christ.” Where does this come from?!
The promises of the old law are temporal and they are suspended not revoked pending the acceptance by the Jewish people of the Messiah, in the only possible way – admittance to the Catholic Church.
February 7, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Where does this come from?
That’s my gloss. It only stands to reason that if Christ is ‘hidden’ in the Old Testament and prefigured in the Law and foretold by the prophets, then a Jewish person will approach Christ through the Law, the Prophets, the Sapiental books and the practices of the Jewish faith which still largely refer to those events in salvific history which were the work of God and prepared the way for the Messiah. The Covenant still points to Christ.
The gentiles are not called to Christ from that position – we do not meet the Gospel from precisely the same position as the Jews does. The Covenant and the Mosaic Law are not our starting point. We are not inserted into the economy of salvation in the same way that the Jews are, although ultimately the means and end of our salvation are the same.
The promises of the Old Law are not purely temporal – a cursory reading of the Fathers would reveal that they signify spiritual realities. The assertion of Lumen Gentium that the Church is the People of God points to a very real connection between the Jewish people and the promises made to them and the fulfilment and elevation of these promises by Christ with respect to His Church.
February 7, 2008 at 8:27 pm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2099.htm#6
Of course the Jewish people were the Church until our Lord’s death. There would be nothing wrong with a Jewish rite that incorporated observances and Jewish cultural practices that fall outside the ritual Law of Moses. The ritual law cannot be used because it has been fulfilled by Christ. Were one to make use of it one would sin mortally by implying the insufficiency of Christ’s death. This is why the old law is not only dead but deadly.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#4
February 7, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I’m not suggesting a Jewish-rite or speaking about Jewish cultural practices. Rather, I;m trying to explain/understand the particular treatment of the Jews in Lumen Gentium 16.
February 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Right. The Old Covenant is not revoked. But Eternal Life was never offered under the Old Covenant anyway. The Jews were justified by Faith. Faith in the-messiah-who-has-not-yet-come is no longer salvific and the ritual law has become deadly. However, the promises (but not the ritual law) would revive if the Jews accepted the Messiah. As it happens we know from revelation that one day they will do this, just before the end of time. Thus, “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.”
February 7, 2008 at 9:02 pm
What Zadok says is what I remember as being said in school. Lumen Gentium. Thanks, Zadok!
February 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Lumen Gentium most definitely does not say
“the Jewish people will be called to Christ through the Mosaic Covenant in a manner different to the way in which the Gentiles are called to Christ.”
All it does is repeat what St Paul says that the Jews are very dear to God that God has not revoked His promises or their call. No mention of the Mosaic Covenant or a future call which differs from that offered to all men.
February 7, 2008 at 9:29 pm
See the start of Lumen Gentium 16
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.
The call is the same. However, the Jews are related to the Church in a particular way. The Council speaks of the ‘various ways’ in which different religions are related to the Church.
If it would suit you better, I can express myself more precisely by saying that the call to the Christ and the Church must have a particular, distinctive and unique sound to the Jewish people who already imperfectly possess much of what we call the Old Testament and who believe themselves heirs to the promises that we understand to point to something different. If the grace of the Holy Spirit is at work in a devout Jewish heart, calling him or her to the Church, well that’s almost certainly will be experienced as a sort of fulfilment distinct from that of an atheist who comes to faith in Christ.
The starting point of the Jew and his journey to faith is distinctive – his destination and the means of his salvation are not. This distinction is reflected in the fact that we pray separately for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy.
February 7, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Fine. So let me divide the thing Seraphic heard in three.
1) The First Convenant still stands.
[If by that you mean the Covenant with Abraham that is true. However its effects are suspended pending the acceptance of the Messiah by the Jews.]
2) The Jews will be saved through their commitment to it
[No they will not. It is true that someone who moved by grace attempted to do this would see that they cannot be saved and embrace the New and Everlasting Covenant but that is not the same thing.]
3) This comes through Jesus but doesn’t entail an act of faith in Jesus.
[Anathema sit]
“the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour … professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil’s dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humanity” – Council of Florence
February 7, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Would you say this is an example of the ambiguousness of the language of the Vatican II documents, compared with the highly precise way in which previous councils’ documents were drafted, of which I have read?
February 7, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Well actually, I don’t think it very vague on this occasion. Though it can be.
February 7, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Zadok: I was thinking of the same place in LG, but rather the sentence “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience”.
Aelianus: are Jews just “not saved” then, full stop?
February 7, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience”
They can because God brings them to faith in Jesus.
“Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. Since without faith it is impossible to please [God] and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life but he who endures to the end.” CCC §161
February 8, 2008 at 5:04 am
Some mediaeval person or other thought that the Gospel might be presented on those who had no knowledge of it for their acceptance or rejection at the moemtn of their death. (That said, after I heard this, i went looking, but couldn’t find this thought in the original.)
I guess Aelianus would not have much time for Rahner’s Anonymous Christian or Fred Crowe’s “Anonymous Spiritan”?
February 8, 2008 at 9:30 am
Seraphic,
Now you’re just trying to stir up trouble.
February 8, 2008 at 10:08 am
But, Aelianus, how does that square with the other excerpt from Lumen Gentium?
February 8, 2008 at 1:57 pm
It doesn’t say “those are saved” it says “those also can attain to salvation”. It is an assertion that no one who is offered grace will be lost save by their own fault. It is no stronger than that. As Seraphic mentioned it has long been speculated that in the event of a pagan cooperating with grace in the manner described by Lumen Gentium God would either ensure a human preacher reached them or that an angel revealed the Gospel to them. Such speculations are possible but really redundant. History is not resistant to the action of providence. If God wishes to ensure a preacher reaches a given person a preacher will reach them. There is no question of anyone in a state of original and actual sin meriting justification. If someone cooperates with grace in the manner described it is because God caused them to do so. It is just as easy for Him to cause them to receive the Gospel through ordinary channels. There is nothing to rule out extraordinary revelation but no reason to suppose it occurs either. The passage from Lumen Gentium does not speculate it simply asserts that if God offers grace and we cooperate the possibility of salvation must exist. This is obvious, why else would God offer grace in the first place? The statement is authoritative but it belongs to the ordinary magisterium. Its content is guaranteed but the form is not. The statement of the Council of Florence repeated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church that “the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour … professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil’s dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humanity” belongs to the extraordinary magisterium it is irreformable of itself. The latter is consequently the rule of interpretation of the former.
February 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“I guess Aelianus would not have much time for Rahner’s Anonymous Christian or Fred Crowe’s “Anonymous Spiritan”?”
Aren’t we called by name?
February 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm
AHHHH… Thanks! I get it now. I had misunderstood a part of it.
February 8, 2008 at 3:53 pm
In terms of the offer of grace to non-Christians, Gaudium et Spes 22 is useful:
The Christian man, conformed to the likeness of that Son Who is the firstborn of many brothers, received “the first-fruits of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:23) by which he becomes capable of discharging the new law of love.(28) Through this Spirit, who is “the pledge of our inheritance” (Eph. 1:14), the whole man is renewed from within, even to the achievement of “the redemption of the body” (Rom. 8:23): “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the death dwells in you, then he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also bring to life your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11). Pressing upon the Christian to be sure, are the need and the duty to battle against evil through manifold tribulations and even to suffer death. But, linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, he will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope.
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.
Please note that the Council makes it clear that salvation is intrinsically linked not to some experience of the ‘Cosmic Christ’ or some ‘Economy of the Spirit’ or anything vague like that – whilst the means in which the offer is made may be unknown, it must have to do with the paschal mystery – namely the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
February 8, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Aelianus: What do you think of Kasper’s comments; he seems to be saying the Church has no mission to those outside the Church!
February 10, 2008 at 5:56 am
Oooh, good one, Zadok!